annex 3 – responses to financial viability in planning spd

Annex 3 – Responses to Financial Viability in Planning SPD Consultation

Responses to the Financial Viability in Planning SPD Consultation

Contents

Emailed and posted responses to the consultation 3

Statutory Consultees 3

Developers / Planning Agents 6

Other Consultees 14

Online questionnaire responses to the consultation 18

Question 1 - Do you have any comments on Section 1: Introduction? 18

Question 2a - To what extent do you agree with the Council’s intention to provide further guidance and greater clarity on the council’s requirements/expectations for financial viability assessments in order to allow greater scrutiny of viability assessments and address current issues within the process?

20

Question 2b & 2c - How else could the Council have approached the resolution of the current problems in viability assessments? / Do you have any other comments?

21

Question 3 - Do you have any comments concerning the policy context set out in Chapter 3? 22

Question 4a - To what extent do you agree with the council’s proposed approach relating to evidence, inputs and assumptions to be used in viability appraisals?

23

Question 4b: To what extent do you agree with the Council’s principles of openness and transparency in viability assessment? 24

Question 4c (i): Are there any aspects of viability assessments that you consider should generally not be disclosed to the public? 25

Question 4c (ii): If so, please set out the reasons why disclosure would cause harm to commercial interests and why the public interest would be better served through not disclosing this information.

26

Question 4d - Do you have any other comments? 26

1


Question 5a & 5b - The council will expect viability appraisals to be backed up by robust evidence and be tested rigorously in the early stages of the application process. To what extent do you agree with the principles laid out in this section?

29

Question 6a: To what extent do you agree that the requirements set out in Appendix 1 and 2 are fair, justified and realistic? 31

Question 6b: To what extent do you think the requirements set out pose any significant barriers to the delivery of development proposals?

32

Question 6c & 6d - Do you have any comments on the Council requiring viability review mechanisms to maximise policy compliance?

33

Question 7 - Do you have any other comments in relation to development viability and the planning process, or any other matters that you deem important for this SPD consultation?

35

Question 8a & 8b - Do you think that the information held in this draft SPD should be integrated into the Council's Planning Obligations SPD?

38

Question 9a & 9b - Are there any parts of the SPD that are unclear? 40

2


Emailed and posted responses to the consultation The Council received 8 detailed responses via email/post from varying stakeholders which have been set out below. Comments (as received) made have been numbered in bold so corresponding responses are easily identifiable. The last column identifies the changes the Council have made to the document as a result of the consultation responses.

Statutory Consultees

ID Respondent / Date Received

Comment RBK Response Document Update

2 Transport for London (07/10/2016)

Please note that these comments represent the views of Transport for London officers and are made entirely on a "without prejudice" basis. They should not be taken to represent an indication of any subsequent Mayoral decision in relation to a planning application based on the proposed scheme. These comments also do not necessarily represent the views of the Greater London Authority, who should be consulted separately. It should be noted that TfL has also responded to the consultation on the Planning Obligations SPD and those comments should be considered with this response. TfL is generally supportive of this Financial Viability SPD which provides details on the requirements for Viability Assessments and the review mechanism. However, the following comments should be considered: 1. Page 13 - Planning Contributions ‘Estimated S106 planning obligation costs should be included as a development cost and be determined in accordance with Kingston’s and the Mayor’s Charging Schedule and the CIL Regulations. Both the Kingston and Mayoral CIL instalment policies, and phased payments under the CIL Regulations, which aid developer cash flow, should also be reflected in the assumed timing of payments’ TfL suggests the above wording is amended to ensure there is no confusion between s106 contributions and CIL. Both Kingston’s and the Mayoral CIL charge will apply to new developments; however s106 contributions will also be used in addition, for any site specific mitigation. This should be clarified in Appendix 1. As stated in TfL’s response to the Planning Obligations SPD, TfL has consistently asked the council in site specific negotiations whether more could be done using s106 contributions to meet the cumulative impacts as part of site specific transport mitigation measures, for example bus or highway improvements. 2. Page 14 & 16 - Costs Appendix 2 includes the detailed requirement schedules for both residential and commercial led schemes. This section outlines a number of costs that would need to be covered or considered by developers. TfL would like to understand which section any transport infrastructure costs would come under, or if an additional point should be added to cover this. Clarification is also requested as to why ‘Planning Costs’ are included for the commercial led schemes, but not residential. Should you wish to discuss any part of this letter or the points raised above, please don’t hesitate to contact me.

Comments noted. 1. The document has been edited to ensure that there is no confusion between S106, MCIL and Kingston CIL and that relevant costs for both commercial-led residential-led schemes are reflected in both sections 2. The term 'planning costs' is now included in both requirement schedules and has been amended to include reference to any associated infrastructure costs including contributions sought via S106, CIL and S278.

Change. Page 13, ‘Planning Contributions’ section: ‘Estimated S106 planning obligation costs should be included as a development cost and be determined in accordance with Kingston’s and the Mayor’s Charging Schedule and the CIL Regulations. Both the Kingston and Mayoral CIL installment policies, and phased payments under the CIL Regulations, which aid developer cash flow, should also be reflected in the assumed timing of payments .’ ...has been reworded to read: ‘Estimated S106 planning obligation and S278 costs should be included as a development cost. Both the Kingston and Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levies should also be included as a development cost, These costs should be programmed in accordance with the relevant CIL instalment policy, and if applicable phased payments as permitted by the CIL Regulations, which aid

3


developer cash flow should also be reflected in the assumed timing of payments . Change. Page 14 and 16, within ‘Costs’ section. Text added: ‘Planning costs (including infrastructure and other contributions). Change. Page 16, within ‘Costs’ section, after ‘Planning costs’, text added ‘(including infrastructure and other contributions) .

3 Highways England (07/10/2016)

Thank you for your email 12 August 2016, advising Highways England of the above consultation. Highways England has been appointed by the Secretary of State for Transport as strategic highway company under the provisions of the Infrastructure Act 2015 and is the highway authority, traffic authority and street authority for the strategic road network (SRN). The SRN is a critical national asset and as such Highways England works to ensure that it operates and is managed in the public interest, both in respect of current activities and needs as well as in providing effective stewardship of its long-term operation and integrity. Highways England will be concerned with proposals that have the potential to impact on the safe and efficient operation of the Strategic Road Network (SRN). 1. Having examined the above documents, we do not offer any comment to this proposal. We stand ready to work with you on transport evidence base re impact of level, location, form and timing of any development.

1. Comment noted. No change.

4 Environmental Agency (07/10/2016)

1. Thank you for consulting the Environment Agency on the above. We do not comment on comparative assessment of land, its availability or suitability for a particular form of development, or the sustainability justifications of development and other material planning considerations as these are beyond the scope of the Environment Agency role, save where a particular land use is prohibited within Flood zone 2 or 3, or is the subject of the application of the Exception Test. Our primary purpose is to promote sustainable development and protect and enhance the environment. We encourage growth that can be supported by the necessary environmental infrastructure, for instance water resources and flood risk management provided in a co-ordinated and timely manner to meet the physical and social needs of both new development and existing communities. Early investment and careful planning may be required to ensure expanded or improved infrastructure will have the capacity to cope with additional demands. Our partnership funding seeks to enable more flood defence capital projects to go ahead, give communities more responsibility and choice about what is done to protect them from flooding and help to make flood risk management projects financially viable. Partnership funding will share the costs of projects between government funding – Flood Defence Grant in Aid (FDGiA) and local investment partners.


4


The aim is to increase certainty and the transparency of national funding allocations to projects while prioritising action for those most at risk. Funding for surface water management and property-level protection will be available alongside funding for other risks and approaches. It is our intention to use proposals for Community Infrastructure Levy charging schedules to secure funding for flood risk management schemes that are unlikely to be wholly funded through Central or Local government funds. The Government recognises that in planning for prosperity adequate infrastructure needs to be provided (NPPF para 7) and the Local Plan has a crucial role in this (Para 157). The Community Infrastructure Levy is seen by Government as a key way to fund new infrastructure and unlock land for growth. For other most up to date and accurate environmental evidence we recommend using Open Gov Data service where you can access our environmental datasets and also datasets from Natural England, Forestry Commission and English Heritage. Please see the link for more detail: http://environment.data.gov.uk/ds/partners/index.jsp#/partners/login

5


Developers / Planning Agents



1 Savills (on behalf of Solum Regeneration) (07/10/2016)

Thank you for providing us with the opportunity to engage in the Royal Borough of Kingston’s consultation on the draft Planning Obligations SPD and the draft Viability in Planning SPD. We write on behalf of Solum Regeneration in the context of their emerging development proposals at Surbiton Station. 1. Whilst we are pleased to note the clear guidance on the Council’s proposed approach to viability assessments, are very concerned with the proposed requirement to make submitted viability assessments publically available, on the basis that these assessments include commercially sensitive data. We consider it best practice to submit viability assessments with written regard to The Freedom of Information Act Section 41 and Section 43. This is on the basis that information contained within viability assessments are provided by the applicant for the sole use of the Council in making its own decision, and that the commercially sensitive material contained within them should not be disclosed to third parties without the applicant’s express permission. Interpreting a viability assessment is a highly technical matter and making such reports and information publically available could lead to misinterpretation by third parties and unnecessary delays to determination. The draft SPD should be revised to take account of this proposed amendment. Future Participation We trust that the above is of assistance in the preparation of these draft SPDs. We would like to be kept up to date with progress, and look forward to further opportunities to engage. Please feel free to contact me or my colleague, Nick Green (020 3320 8234) of these offices in the first instance if you have any queries or if you’d like to discuss.

1. Viability assessments can significantly influence the outcome of the planning process and for the other reasons stated in the SPD, the council considers that there is a strong case for greater transparency in the process. Any justification for confidentiality of any part of a viability assessment would be assessed on the basis of the adverse effect and overriding public interest tests within the EIR, having regard to the specific circumstances of the case. Guidance on the EIR tests has been published by the Information Commissioner's Office 'How Exceptions and the Public Interest Test Work in the Environmental Information Regulations'. The SPD addresses commercially sensitive information in the following statement on page 7 under paragraph 4.6 "Where an applicant requests that a redacted version of a viability appraisal be made public, the Council will only accept this position in receipt of satisfactory evidence providing justification for the components of the report to be redacted and the period of time for which they should remain redacted.

No change.

6 Berkeley Group (15/09/2016)

Berkeley Group welcomes the opportunity to respond to the consultation on this draft SPD. We have three developments in the Royal Borough of Kingston-upon-Thames: Queenshurst (the former gas site); Latchmere House and Royal Exchange (the former Post Office site). Placemaking is at the heart of our approach and our developments deliver a mix of uses, homes in different tenures, commercial space and community spaces, as well as exceptional public realm and new public spaces. We support the need for greater transparency in the viability process so that there is a clear understanding

1. The Council provides heads of terms for planning obligations and, where requested, a preliminary assessment of CIL costs, to inform viability testing during the pre-application process. The council seeks to agree heads of terms at the pre-app stage so that there is sufficient time for drafting of the S106

Change. Page 9, para 4.8. Text deleted: ‘Where proposed schemes are to be submitted and don’t require a development viability appraisal because they fully meet the

6


of how decisions are made. Given the complex and sensitive nature of viability appraisals, it is important that this is addressed at the right time and that the most sensitive information remains confidential. We would be pleased to discuss our response. 1. Timing, Openness and Transparency a) We agree that viability should be discussed early in the planning application process alongside the S106 heads. Early discussion of all aspects of development is critical for the swift and efficient processing of applications and ultimately the delivery of new homes. b) However, we do not think that the viability assessment should be part of the validation requirements for applications, or that the assessment should be made public at the application stage. c) Requiring the viability assessment as part of validation would delay validation. Major planning applications will evolve and change after submission as a result of consultation with the planning authority, the community and statutory consultees. Changes to the development quantum, design and mix will change the viability assessment and its conclusions. It will be confusing to the public when a further assessment is then submitted to reflect the changes to the proposals. d) A more appropriate to submit the viability assessment is when it has been agreed, prior to planning committee. We would also suggest that a non-technical summary of the viability assessment is prepared in advance of the committee meeting. e) Publishing the viability assessment upon submission would not help make the planning process more transparent or aid public understanding. It could complicate matters as the public will not understand why the assessment changes through the course of the application and it could be a drain valuable resources not least officer's time as members of the public query elements of the assessment. f) We welcome recognition that elements of the appraisal are of a sensitive commercial nature and in such cases the applicant should provide justification for their redaction. This reflects recent FOI decisions which recognises that some information is commercially sensitive and there should not be blanket disclosure. Such items might include allowance for acquisition of third party land, rights of light, vacant possession compensation costs or other information that would severely compromise the applicant's commercial position. g) We note that the applicant will be liable for the council’s assessment costs and that all costs must be met prior to determination. Given the relationship between the viability and S106 obligations, it is critical that key elements of the S106 are agreed at this stage as changes, for example to the timing of payments of affordable housing triggers, can impact on viability. h) We note the requirement for a legally binding declaration to confirm that the development is viable where development plan policy is met. We would like to understand more about how this is proposed to work. Given the very fluid nature of development and development viability, a development might be viable at a point in time but become unviable where factors change such build costs or sales values.

agreement. The Council expect that a financial viability assessment is submitted at validation, this will help to expedite the decision making process. Applications should reflect the outcomes of pre-application advice so as to avoid delaying the application process. The Council recognises that proposals may change over the course of the application process. In this sense amendments to viability appraisals are no different to amendments to design or other aspects of an application. Viability methodology, inputs and outcomes should be considered at an early stage (pre-app) as these may influence key aspects of the proposal. The Council has removed the requirement for entering into a legally binding declaration to confirm that the development is viable. 2. Comment noted. 3. The need to identify profit levels from similar developments has been removed from the document. 4. The Council considers that pre-application submissions should include details of discussions with RPs, even if offers have not yet been formalised. The Council considers that an Alternative Use Value approach to the benchmark land value may only be accepted where there is a valid consent for the alternative use or if the alternative use would fully comply with the the Council’s Local

Council’s Local Development Framework policies, the Council will require the applicant/developer to enter into a legally binding declaration to confirm that the development is viable .’ Change. Page 14, within ‘Costs’ section, text added: ‘Planning costs (including infrastructure and other contributions) . Change. Page 16, within ‘Costs’ section, after ‘Planning costs’, text added ‘(including infrastructure and other contributions) . Change. Page 12, second paragraph in ‘Developer Profit’, text deleted: ‘and profits achieved on comparable schemes’.

7


2. Benchmark Land Value EUV plus a) We note that land will be valued on the basis of existing use value plus a premium, where applicable. To increase housing delivery it is critical to incentivise the release of land and landowners will not release land for existing use value, a significant premium is required. 3. Profit a) Profit levels should be related to the level of risk. Property development is a cyclical and highly risky business. It is very easy, at the top of the market with high values and strong growth, to ignore the huge investment it takes to make development happen and the significant risks that developers take. b) Major regeneration projects require tens and sometimes hundreds of millions of pounds of investment before any cash is returned, let alone profit made. This will include significant early investment in creating a place which benefits the wider area. c) Development entails significant risks including letting construction contracts, cost inflation, sales and commercial letting, and other external factors such as the wider economy, local issues (such as increased competition and factors affecting the quality of the wider environment) and issues such as rights of light and the physical challenges of demolition and construction. The return sought by shareholders reflects the degree of risk that is taken. d) We do not agree that it is appropriate to justify profit levels with information from comparable developments. Each development is different and needs to be considered in its context and at the time it is being proposed. 4. Appendix 1– principal requirements a) On most developments, especially those delivered over a long time, it will not be possible to engage RPs early in the application process. b) We do not consider it appropriate to provide information on profit from other developments. c) The mixed use nature of Kingston means that it is likely that there are alternative uses for a site and we therefore consider that it is reasonable to accept these as part of the land value. Without doing this, landowners will be discouraged to sell their land for a change of use. d) We agree that S106 obligations should be included as a cost. It is important that there are not fundamental changes to them post committee as this will affect viability. e) Viability review mechanisms should only be included where there is a delay to implementation or on very long term developments built over a number of phases. The inclusion of a review linked to reaching a specified milestone, such as completion of the basement works, would be reasonable to incentivise early delivery. Reviews should only be included post implementation (other than where linked to an agreed early milestone) in exceptional circumstances. Typically on long term developments developers will invest

Development Framework. In such cases a full viability appraisal must be submitted together with a provisional design indicating how the alternative use could be accommodated on the site. The SPD identifies that any application or review mechanism will be assessed in light of the particular circumstances of the development. 5. The Council has amended the SPD to reflect planning costs for both residential and commercial led schemes. Financial Viability Appraisals supporting applications for full planning permission, outline planning permission and hybrid applications will be published in full one week prior to determination. The term 'planning costs' now included in both requirement schedules has been amended to include reference to any associated infrastructure costs including contributions sought via S106, CIL and S278. The Council is cognisant of the risk that growth models may include over or understated value projections, whilst adopting significantly higher profit targets, for this reason the use of review mechanisms may still be appropriate where growth models are considered.

8


significant sums at risk on site preparation and the provision of early infrastructure. Any review must take full account of cost increases, start at the position that the development is not in deficit, and be capped at the outset so that the full risk is known to the applicant and their funders. Where growth assumptions are included in the assessment we do not think it is reasonable to include a review mechanism as this would effectively be double counting. 5. Appendix 2 – detailed requirements schedule – residential-led development a) It should be clarified that any income to be taken into account during development should be that from new development and not the existing site; the viability appraisal is based on the new planning permission. b) Planning costs should be included (as they are for commercial-led developments). c) Where growth models are used there should not be a review mechanism

8 Deloitte (on behalf on Eden Walk Shopping Centre) (07/10/2016)

These representatives are made on behalf of Eden Walk Shopping Centre Limited Partnership. The views set out in this list are intended to support the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames in refining its Financial Viability in Planning SPD. We recognise that the SPD in in draft format and that the Council is seeking feedback from developers, landowners and consultants to help determine whether the proposals are acceptable from a market perspective. We have utilised the questions on your website as we understand this is your preferred format of hearing from us. In summary, this response focuses upon the following areas: - The requirement for applicants to disclose commercially sensitive information in the public domain; - The definition of Benchmark Land Value (BLV); and - The level of information sought from applicants, which in some circumstances may be unnecessary. Question 1: Do you have any comments on Section 1: Introduction? No. Question 2a: To what extent do you agree with the Council’s intention to provide further guidance and greater clarity on the council’s requirements/expectations for financial viability assessments in order to allow greater scrutiny of viability assessments and address current issues within the process? Neither agree nor disagree Question 2b: How else could the Council have approached the resolution of the current problems in viability assessments? The principle of ensuring clarity and consistency in information submitted as part of viability assessments is welcome. However, the degree to which information is made available to the general public presents a number of concerns discussed further in the response to Question 4C(ii).

Q1: Noted. Q2: Comments noted. Q3: Noted. Q4: The SPD addresses commercially sensitive information in the following statement on page under paragraph 4.6 "Where an applicant requests that a redacted version of a viability appraisal be made public, the Council will only accept this position in receipt of satisfactory evidence providing justification for the components of the report to be redacted and the period of time for which they should remain redacted. The Council recognises that there is a range of different guidance relating to viability assessments which has in some cases led to a diversity in approach. This SPD sets out the overarching principles for how this Council will approach development viability where it is a consideration as part of the planning process, in line with the NPPF and the national Planning Practice Guidance (PPG). The SPD has been amended to

Change. Page 12, second paragraph in ‘Developer Profit’, text deleted: ‘and profits achieved on comparable schemes’. Change. Page 17, within ‘Sensitivity Analysis’. Text deleted: ‘Two way sensitivity analysis’; ‘Simulation analysis (where appropriate) ’. Text added: ‘Sensitivity analysis should be used to justify assumptions including sales values .’

9


Question 2c: Do you have any other comments? See above. Q3: Do you have any comments concerning the policy context set out in Chapter 3? No. Question 4a: To what extent do you agree with the council’s proposed approach relating to evidence, inputs and assumptions to be used in viability appraisals? Agree. Question 4b: To what extent do you agree with the Council’s principles of openness and transparency in viability assessment? Strong disagree. Question 4c (i): Are there any aspects of viability assessments that you consider should generally not be disclosed to the public? Yes. Question 4c (ii): If so, please set out the reasons why disclosure would cause harm to commercial interests and why the public interest would be better served through not disclosing this information. Whilst recognising the Council’s intention to promote transparency and increase the level of public scrutiny in the planning process, the SPD as drafted presents a number of concerns. The viability appraisals produced by our client are typically for large scale and multi-phased development schemes. The appraisals are accordingly complex and should, in our view, be reviewed by the Council’s independent viability consultant. It should be recognised that developments within the Borough often require the acquisition of third party interests on the land. The associated costs are legitimate costs for inclusion within a viability appraisal but are clearly highly commercially sensitive. It is often the case that land assembly will only commence once planning permission has been granted and to provide the associated cost estimate in the public domain would compromise the commercial position of the landowner and/or developer. The assessment of values is also an area of acute commercial sensitivity. Typically, viability appraisals will include details of anticipated rental values, capital values and incentives. To disclose such assumptions in advance of agreements being reached with end occupiers and purchases would compromise future negotiations and risk delivery and viability of the scheme, contrary to the Council’s objectives. It is also worth noting the RCIS comments on the confidentiality of viability materials: “In order to encourage openness and transparency in the variability process both at pre- and

include the following text under paragraph 4.3. "The Council may appoint an independent valuer or seek other qualified advice to test assumptions and provide the Council with advice on the levels of affordable housing that can be achieved. The costs of financial appraisals and independent assessments will be met by the developer." The Council has removed the requirement for entering into a legally binding declaration to confirm that the development is viable. Q5: Comments noted. Q6: Comments noted. Q7: Comments noted. Q8: Comments noted. Q9:The Council has removed reference to two way sensitivity analysis and simulation analysis. The Council has purposefully applied the caveat 'where appropriate' to items that it does not consider will be applicable to all financial viability assessments, the absence of this caveat indicates that there is a specific requirement to include such items.

10


post-application, it is also often the case that the viability reports submitted to a local planning authority are required to be classified as confidential in part or as a whole. This is to encourage the applicant to disclose the maximum amount of information, which can then be reviewed and reported upon. LPAs should therefore be asked to treat an hold this information on a similarly reciprocal basis and respect that disclosure of confidential information could be prejudicial basis and respect that disclosure of confidential information could be prejudicial to the developer (applicant) if it were to enter the public domain. Information will usually be disclosed to the LAP advisor but not to the general public as it may be commercially sensitive. LAPs should therefore be asked to treat and hold this information on a similarly reciprocal basis and respect that disclosure of confidential information could be prejudicial to the developer (applicant) if it were to enter the public domain. Information will usually be disclosed to the LAP advisor but not to the general public as it may be commercially sensitive” (RICS, 2012, Financial Viability in Planning 1st Edition, Guidance Note). In summary, we consider that making viability assessments a matter for public debate presents both a disincentive for developers to invest in the Borough and perhaps more pertinently would compromise future negotiations, with damaging and unlimited consequences. In our opinion, the Council, its members and the general public would be better served by a requirements for applicants to provide a full viability appraisal to an independent and suitably qualified expert employed by the local planning authority. Such as expert would have a duty of care to the Council and would provide a report summarising why the proposed development is proposing a non-policy compliant level of planning contributions and advising whether the applicant has provided a sufficient robust case to justify this. Such as approach would enable the Council to challenge applicant's’ viability appraisals and demonstrate to the public that applications have been thoroughly assessed by qualified professionals acting on its behalf. Question 4d: Do you have any other comments? Our comments relate to the following paragraphs in Section 4: 4.8 “Where proposed schemes are to be submitted and don’t require a development viability appraisal because they fully meet the Council’s Development Plan policies, the Council will require the applicant / developer to enter into a legally binding declaration to confirm that the development in viable.” Comment: What is the purpose of the “legally binding declarations” of viability? How will this be defined, enforced and over what time period is it anticipated to last? Question 5a: The council will expect viability appraisals to be backed up by robust evidence and be tested rigorously in the early stages of the application process. To what extent do you agree with the principles laid out in this section? Agree. Question 5b: Do you have any other comments?

11


See responses to Question 6D for comments regarding Benchmark Land Value (BLV) Question 6a: To what extent do you agree that the requirements set out in Appendix 1 and 2 are fair, justified and realistic? Agree. Question 6b: To what extent do you think the requirements set out pose any significant barriers to the delivery of development proposals? Moderate barrier. Question 6c: Do you have any comments on the Council requiring viability review mechanisms to maximise policy compliance? No. Question 6d: Do you have any other comments? The definition of Benchmark Land Value (BLV) at Appendix 1 should be redrafted to say that the BLV is “the minimum price a landowner will accept for their land.” In order to avoid a scenario where land does not come forward for development, we consider that the flexibility to have regard to actual land price paid and/ or market value, should be retained. In a competitive bidding scenario; the BLV should reflect the market value of the land and will represent a crystallized cost that a developer will be required to account for. Question 7: Do you have any other comments in relation to development viability and the planning process, or any other matters that you deem important for this SPD consultation? See response to Question 8B. Question 8a: Do you think that the information held in this draft SPD should be integrated into the Councils Planning Obligations SPD? Yes with changes. Question 8b: Please comment In summary, the SPD should be redrafted to: Remove the requirements for applicants to disclose commercially sensitive information in the public domain (Section 4 of the SPD); Redefine Benchmark Land Value (Appendix 1 of the SPD); and Remove the absolute requirement for the Principle Requirements, in order that the Council or its independent consultant can advise whether this information is necessary (Appendices 1 and 2 of the SPD). Question 9a: Are there any parts of the SPD that are unclear?

12


Yes. Question 9b: If so, please specify Appendix 2 (pages 15 & 17) refers to “Sensitivity Analysis” and in particular lists: “Two-way sensitivity analysis” “Simulation analysis (where appropriate)” These terms have not been defined in the draft document and are therefore unclear. Notwithstanding this, all items listed under Appendices 1 and 2 should be marked “where appropriate” or “where requested” to reduce unnecessary burdens on the development community and associated delays to submission of planning applications.

13


Other Consultees



5 Health and Safety Executive (07/09/2016)

Thank you for your request to provide a representation on the above consultation documents. When consulted on land use planning matters, HSE where possible will make representations to ensure that compatible development within the consultation zones of major hazard establishments and major accident hazard pipelines (MAHPs) is achieved. 1. We have concluded that we have no representation to make at this stage of your local planning process. This is because there is insufficient information in the consultation document on the location and use class of sites that could be developed. In the absence of this information, HSE is unable to give advice regarding the compatibility of future developments within the consultation zones of major hazard establishments and MAHPs located in the area of your local plan. Planning authorities are advised to use HSE’s Planning Advice Web App to verify any advice given. The Web App is a software version of the methodology used in providing land use planning advice. It replaces PADHI+. Please see the advice note below for further information on the Web App including accessing the package. Future Consultation with HSE on Local Plans HSE acknowledges that early consultation can be an effective way of alleviating problems due to incompatible development at the later stages of the planning process, and that we may be able to provide advice on development compatibility as your plan progresses. Therefore, we would like to be consulted further on local plan documents where detailed land allocations and use class proposals are made; e.g. site specific allocations of land in development planning documents.


7 Dron & Wright (on behalf of the London Fire and Emergency Authority) (06/10/2016)

We write in order to make comment on the above named consultation document. Please note that we act on behalf of the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority (LFEPA) and that this representation is made on their behalf. For your information the following LFEPA sites are within the borough: Kingston Fire Station - 390 Richmond Road, KT2 5PR Surbiton Fire Station - 31/33 Ewell Road, KT6 6AF For ease of reference, we have made our responses in the same order as the consultation questionnaire, as set out below: Section 1: Introduction We note the Council’s comment that there is a range of different guidance relating to viability assessments and recommend that reference within the draft SPD should instead be made to the pre-eminent guidance on development viability which is produced by the RICS, in their Guidance Note of August 2012. We consider that the likely outcome of the draft SPD, in its current form, will be to act as a deterrent to developers, who will simply avoid undertaking any development in the borough. This clearly goes against the main objective of the NPPF, whereby there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Section 17 of the NPPF includes the need for Council’s to ‘proactively drive and support sustainable economic development to

Section 1: Comments noted. Section 2: Comments noted. Section 3: Comments noted. Section 4: The principle goal of the planning system is to deliver sustainable development as expressed by the development plan policies. The approach set out in the Kingston Financial Viability in Planning SPD does not contradict the NPPF. The requirement for entering into a legally binding declaration to confirm that

Change. Page 9, paragraph 4.8. Text deleted: ‘Where proposed schemes are to be submitted and don’t require a development viability appraisal because they fully meet the Council’s Local Development Framework policies, the Council will require the applicant/developer to enter into a legally binding declaration to confirm that the development is viable .

14


deliver homes...that the country needs.’ Section 2: Purpose of Document We understand the Council’s wish to provide greater clarity to applicants, however, we consider it inappropriate for the Council to provide definitive guidance on the methodologies that you believe to be most appropriate, particularly when the Council has vested interest in the outcome and are therefore clearly conflicted. Section 3: Policy Context No comment regarding this section. Section 4: Viability Assessment and the Planning Application Process We note that the Council requires ‘benchmark land value’ (Existing Use Value plus a premium) to be compared with the Residual Land Value, based on the Council’s requirements, in order to assess whether a development is viable. This is a departure from National policy as Section 17 of the NPPF states that ‘plans should take account of market signals, such as land prices…’, which this position clearly does not. We note Section 4.4 states that ‘The Council will consider whether the approach adopted and the inputs applied are appropriate’ however we reiterate the point that we consider it inappropriate for the Council to provide definitive guidance, particularly when you have a vested interest in the outcome and are therefore clearly conflicted. Whilst we understand, and do not oppose, the desire to provide greater transparency in relation to viability information, we consider the disclosure of commercially sensitive information to the public to the unreasonable. For example, arrangements in place between landowners and developers, as well as funding arrangements, may be confidential and commercially sensitive. Build costs and sales revenues (and other such financial information) are also sensitive, in a highly competitive industry. Therefore, if assurances cannot be provided by the Council as to the confidentiality of the information, this is likely to act as another deterrent to developers, who will choose to avoid the borough completely. Section 154 of the NPPF states that Council's’ planning policy documents ‘should be aspirational but realistic’. We also consider the requirements for a legally binding declaration to confirm that a development is viable (where proposed schemes are to be submitted and therefore don't require a viability appraisal), to be excessive. We consider it sufficient for signatories to a viability report to confirm that they have complied with all relevant rules, professional guidance, and codes of conduct in carrying out their work. This should provide the public with confidence that all work has been undertaken to a high standard. Section 174 of the NPPF states that ‘evidence supporting the assessment should be proportionate, using only appropriate available evidence’. Section 5: Principle Requirements We reiterate our view that all financial aspects, including in some circumstances key evidence/comparables, should remain confidential. The disclosure of sensitive financial information may ultimately deter developers from progressing schemes in the borough, which will be contrary to the provisions of the NPPF.

the development is viable has been removed from the SPD. Section 5: The NPPF sets out that the purpose of the planning system is to deliver sustainable development through a plan-led system. This SPD provides guidance on the implementation of the Council's Local Development Framework policies. The approach taken is consistent with the NPPF and PPG. The latter confirms that EUV may provide an appropriate basis for comparison as a means to determining a competitive return. The Council realise that this may produce a premium above the EUV and should incentivise release of the site. The Council considers that it is necessary to undertake review mechanisms to ensure that development complies with planning policy where it is viable to do so. The Council notes the importance of monitoring viability information and may undertake post completion reviews for this purpose. Section 6: Comments noted. Section 7: Comments noted.

Change. Page 12, second paragraph in ‘Developer Profit’, text deleted: ‘and profits achieved on comparable schemes’.

15


As previously stated, and as referred to yourselves, the pe-eminent guidance on development viability is that produced by the RICS, in their Guidance Note of August 2012, entitled ‘Financial Viability in Planning’. The relevant sections of this guidance are as follows, and later discussed under under Section 6: Paragraph 3.4.1 refers to the Current Use Value (CUV) or Existing Use Value (EUV) plus a premium, as being one method of assessing the land value. However, it confirms that the problem with that singular approach is that it does not reflect the real workings of the market, as land is not actually released at CUV plus a margin or at UV plus. It also recognises that the mark-up or premium can be arbitrary and is often applied inconsistently. LFEPA is not able to release any property at a CUV or EUV figure, as it has a statutory duty to achieve the best consideration which is reasonable obtainable, on all property disposals. In relation to the detailed information required (set ot in Appendix 2) we do not consider Viability Review Mechanisms to be appropriate. It should be noted that paragraph 3.6.4 of the RICS Guidance Note confirms that the use of reappraisals should be limited to phased schemes, or to other exceptional circumstances only. Section 205 of the NPPF also states that ‘where obligations are being sought or revised, local planning authorities should take account of changes in the market conditions over time, and wherever appropriate, be sufficiently flexible to prevent planned development being stalled.’ It would therefore clearly be inappropriate to apply these proposed reviews to all development in the borough. The RICS Guidance Note also refers to the need for confidentiality with regard to viability assessments ‘in part or as a whole as information within them, if disclosed in the public realm, would be prejudicial.’ It even suggests that Councils’ advisors should be subject to a confidentiality agreement prior to scrutinising the information, however this move may discourage openness and transparency on the part of developers, which will negate the issues that Council is trying to promote. Section 6: Appendix 1 (Principal Requirements) and Appendix 2 (Detailed Requirement Schedule) We note the Council’s comment relating to the Benchmark Land Value, whereby it is considered that the EUV plus a premium approach provides a more effective basis for securing sustainable development. However, paragraph 3.4.2 of the RICS Guidance directly combats that approach, as it identifies the risk that adopting EUV plus a landowner premium can undervalue land, thereby artificially inflating the level of planning obligations and reducing likely land delivery. Appendix E confirms that a CUV approach is not recommended and promotes the use of site value in the appraisal of development viability. Site value is based on the market value of the land, on a risk adjusted basis, i.e. reflecting the fast that there is no planning consent in place. It also has regard to development plan policies and other material planning considerations, disregarding that which is contrary to the plan. Paragraph 3.4.9 also acknowledges that Alternative Use Value (AUV can be used to benchmark land value, where an alternative use generates a higher value than the current use. We note that the Council has stated that AUV may only be accepted where there is a valid planning consent for the alternative use or id the alternative use fully complies in full with the Development Plan. We do not consider this reasonable, particularly whereby this should only apply where a formal change of use has been accepted. This approach will effectively prolong the planning process of any development, requiring a two stage planning application, and could result in an unnecessary increase in workload for the Council’s planning department. Section 7: Other comments

16


In view of the above it is considered that ‘Existing Use Value plus a premium’ should not be adopted to benchmark the land value in most cases. It is more appropriate to use the value of the property, on a ‘risk adjusted in planning terms’ basis. To conclude, we understand the Council’s wish to make assessments more transparent and accessible by making them available to the public. The currently drafted SPD, however, suggests that this is done entirely to the developer's’ expense, and to the detriment of the residential development business sector as a whole. The overall impact that this will have on future development within the borough should be taken into serious consideration. The use of ‘Existing Use Value plus a premium’ to benchmark land value will produce an artificially enhanced level of profit in development viability valuations. We trust that the above is clear and confirm our wishes to be notified of all progress relating to this matter. In the meantime, please do not hesitate to contact Mel Barlow-Graham should you require any further information, or clarification of the matters raised above.

17


Online questionnaire responses to the consultation The Council received 6 responses to the SPD via the online questionnaire on the Council’s website. Comments made (as received) have been numbered in bold so corresponding responses are easily identifiable. The last column identifies the changes the Council have made to the document as a result of the consultation responses. Question 1 - Do you have any comments on Section 1: Introduction?

ID Number

Respondent Question 1: Do you have any comments on Section 1: Introduction?

RBK Response Document Update

1 Caroline Cheales 1. the process needs to give public confidence in the assessment, that it has been applied correctly and that the interests of the developer are appropriately balanced with those of the community and environment, current and future. this policy guidance has become necessary in part because of a massive lack of confidence in the process and to close loopholes that developers have used to wriggle out of sharing the spoils of development fairly and in some cases to extract value and create issues that the community and public purse will bear in the future.

1. Comment Noted No change.

3 ctshah 1. You need to explain exactly what is meant by "that balances planning objectives in an optimum way". This is too vague to be meaningful. 2. The council never does any robust assessment of developments. Reports lack any detail or rational argument for decisions being recommended. Officers and councillors appear lacking in skills to assess developments and challenge developers.

1. The purpose of viability testing as part of the planning application process is to ensure that developments are deliverable in a way that balances planning objectives in an optimum way. The principle goal of the planning system is to deliver sustainable development as expressed by the development plan policies and the Council’s Local Development Framework. 2. The Council in the preparation of this SPD has sought to provide clarity to developers and stakeholders on matters pertaining to the role of financial viability assessments. The SPD is required to ensure the implementation of adopted planning policies, which form the basis of the delivery of sustainable development in the Borough and seeks to maximise the opportunity to secure policy compliant development in the Borough.

No change.

6 Richard Ware 1. See commentary in question 7 1. Comment noted. No change.

18


The following consultees submitted a response but did not comment specifically on Question 1 of the survey.

ID Name

2 Stuart Hartley

4 Russell Pedley

5 Iain Martin

19


Question 2a - To what extent do you agree with the Council’s intention to provide further guidance and greater clarity on the council’s requirements/expectations for financial viability assessments in order to allow greater scrutiny of viability assessments and address current issues within the process?

20


Question 2b - How else could the Council have approached the resolution of the current problems in viability assessments? Question 2c: Do you have any other comments?

ID Number

Respondent Question 2b - How else could the Council have approached the resolution

of the current problems in viability assessments?

Question 2c - Do you have any other comments?


1 Caroline Cheales 1. there has definitely been a gap in the process which has been exploited by developers. this, if applied rigorously, should stem the tide. an alternative route could be a premium on new builds paid by the purchaser - which would have the effect of reducing the price paid to the developer for each unit but also increase the entry costs for owners. however, it would be more transparent.

2. calculate the hope value associated with the land value uplift from public investment in regeneration. the value of land in kingston is partly driven by the cumulative impact of past investment and part by expectations of future investment. this should be clearly delineated from shown separately in the assessment

Comments 1 & 2 noted. No change.

2 Stuart Hartley 1. The current problem with viability assessments is that residents do not see them. This is a council decision.

2. Local councillors insist that they are not allowed to share viability assessments. This is not true. When I have asked to see viability assessments I have been refused. This shows the lack of commitment the council has to transparency.

Comments 1 & 2 noted. See paragraph 4.6 of the SPD for more detail.

No change.

3 ctshah 1. This question is too general to answer? Are you expecting people to do your work for you? Also, who are the "stakeholders" to whom you refer? This council is a laughing stock.

2. I despair of this council. These "consultations" are a joke.

Comments 1 & 2 noted. No change.

4 Russell Pedley 1. Ensure viability assessments recognise Build to Rent PRS and focuses on net operating income rather that capital values.

2. Ensure viability assessments recognise Build to Rent PRS and focuses on net operating income rather that capital values.

Comments 1 & 2 noted. The Council has amended the SPD to include Net Operating Income (where appropriate) in the Gross Development Value section of the Detailed Requirement Schedules for both Residential Led Schemes and Commercial Led Schemes

Change. Page 14 and 16, within ‘Gross Development Value’ section. Bullet point added: ‘Net operating income (where appropriate) .

5 Iain Martin 1. Publish financial viability assessments. Comment 1 noted. No change.

6 Richard Ware 1. See commentary in question 7 Comment 1 noted. No change.

21


Question 3 - Do you have any comments concerning the policy context set out in Chapter 3?

ID Number

Respondent Question 3 - Do you have any comments concerning the policy

context set out in Chapter 3?


1 Caroline Cheales 1. a competitive return does not include speculative returns on alternative schemes that are used for comparison - see later comment re alternative use value

1. Comment noted No change.

3 ctshah 1. You can not expect comments to the Policy Context to be given in a small box like this one. The context is full of jargon and generalities. It is meaningless.

1. The council recognise that there is a higher than usual amount of jargon and technical language used in this document, and try to avoid this as much is feasibly possible. However, the subject of this SPD is a particularly technical one, and its intended audience (commercial landowners and developers) means that the language and form of the SPD needs to reflect this to ensure it is effective in its intended use. Nonetheless, it is important for us to provide residents an opportunity to give feedback on this.

No change.

4 Russell Pedley 1. Affordable housing is a pressing need. A particular opportunity is institutionally backed purposed designed homes for private rent 'Build to Rent' PRS the policies should recognise and promote it. intermediate affordable housing should be provided in these schemes through Discounted Market Rent. Policy context should recognise this.

1. The Council has amended the SPD to include Net Operating Income (where appropriate) in the Gross Development Value section of the Detailed Requirement Schedules for both Residential Led Schemes and Commercial Led Schemes

Change. Page 14 and 16, within ‘Gross Development Value’ section.Bullet point added: ‘Net operating income (where appropriate) .

5 Iain Martin 1. More emphasis and clarification needed on the provision of affordable and social housing.


6 Richard Ware 1. See commentary in question 7 1. Comment noted No change.


ID Name

2 Stuart Hartley

22


Question 4a - To what extent do you agree with the council’s proposed approach relating to evidence, inputs and assumptions to be used in viability appraisals?

23


Question 4b: To what extent do you agree with the Council’s principles of openness and transparency in viability assessment?

24


Question 4c (i): Are there any aspects of viability assessments that you consider should generally not be disclosed to the public?

25


Question 4c (ii): If so, please set out the reasons why disclosure would cause harm to commercial interests and why the public interest would be better served through not disclosing this information. Question 4d - Do you have any other comments?

ID Number

Respondent Question 4c (i): Are there any aspects

of viability assessments that

you consider should generally

not be disclosed to the public?

Question 4c (ii): If so, please set out the reasons why

disclosure would cause harm to commercial interests and

why the public interest would be better served through not disclosing this information.

Question 4d - Do you have any other comments?


1 Caroline Cheales No

1. check the way question 4B is assessed - the sequence of radio buttons is not the same as for other questions. is this a mistake? 2. I strongly disagree with the Alternative Use Value method. for this to be pertinent it is not sufficient to be in line with policy - it should have similar status to the ELV in that is it proceedable. surely the developer should submit an alternative use application for an in principle decision which is consulted on before it is considered to be a valid alternative? otherwise this part of the process is not transparent and open to abuse. i would also like to see some mechanism to show the effect of public investment in land values before and after, that are not double counted or ignored. assumptions should be published - so that they can be validated/tested some developments inflate the cost of the land before development through opaque transactions between connected bodies. developers should show the relationship between parties from the last use to the current ownership and declare any relationships so that the council can assess the true value of the land, not the value inflated by skimming off profit

1. The council apologise for the formatting error on the online consultation portal, this was noticed early into the consultation period and rectified. The council will avoid this happening again in the future. 2. The Council has taken the view that the alternative use method is only acceptable in instances where the developer can demonstrate that the alternative use has planning permission or where it fully complies with the Local Development Framework.

No change.

26


before development starts.

2 Stuart Hartley No 1. Viability assessments should be published in a unreacted form. I can think of no instance were commercial interests will be affected by publication.

2. The council needs to publish viability assessments. Current plans for Kingston need to have their viability assessments published. The council currently hides this information at their own choice.

Comment 1 & 2 noted. The SPD indicates that the council will only accept redactions in receipt of satisfactory evidence providing justification for the components to be redacted and the period of time for which they should remain redacted. The evidence will be reviewed against the requirements of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, specifically the tests within Regulation 12. This approach replicates the outcome of recent appeal decisions and The Information Commissioner's Office guidance in their report titled 'How exceptions and the public interest test work in the Environmental Information Regulations' (ICO, 2016).

No change.

3 ctshah No

1. This is too general to have any meaning whatsoever or to limit what may be put forward in any way. This type of tick box exercise is a waste of time that the council is using to justify what it has already decided to do.


4 Russell Pedley Yes 1. personal information and commercially sensitive information.

2. Ensure viability assessments recognise Build to Rent PRS and focuses on net operating income rather that capital values.

1. Viability assessments can significantly influence the outcome of the planning process and for the other reasons stated in the SPD, the council considers that there is a strong case for greater transparency in the process. Any justification for confidentiality of any part of a viability assessment would be assessed on the basis of the adverse effect and overriding public interest tests within the EIR, having regard to the specific circumstances of the case. 2. The Council has amended the SPD to include Net Operating Income (where appropriate) in the Gross Development Value section of the Detailed Requirement Schedules


27


for both Residential Led Schemes and Commercial Led Schemes

5 Iain Martin No 1. Caveats can be given if necessary.

1. Comments noted. No change.

6 Richard Ware No

1. Being able to disclose Developers commercially sensitive information/details/pricing would probably be unacceptable to the Developer.

1. Viability assessments can significantly influence the outcome of the planning process and for the other reasons stated in the SPD, the council considers that there is a strong case for greater transparency in the process. Any justification for confidentiality of any part of a viability assessment would be assessed on the basis of the adverse effect and overriding public interest tests within the EIR, having regard to the specific circumstances of the case.

No change.

28


Question 5a & 5b - The council will expect viability appraisals to be backed up by robust evidence and be tested rigorously in the early stages of the application process. To what extent do you agree with the principles laid out in this section?

29


ID Number

Respondent Question 5a: The council will expect viability

appraisals to be backed up by robust evidence

and be tested rigorously in the early stages of the application process. To

what extent do you agree with the principles laid

out in this section?

Question 5b: Do you have any other comments?


1 Caroline Cheales Disagree 1. 5.1 should include a title history to ensure that there are no inflating transactions for the land value that the current owner/developer benefits from. there is an incentive for this to happen if there is no mechanism to use an adjusted figure taking into account banked profit prior to development AUVs should be established through an outline permission - not theoretically

1. Comment note. The council has taken the view that the alternative use method is only acceptable in instances where the developer can demonstrate that the alternative use has planning permission or where it fully complies with the Council’s Local Development Framework..

No change.

2 Stuart Hartley Neither agree nor disagree Noted. No change.

3 ctshah

1. This is meaningless drivel 1. Comment noted. No change.

4 Russell Pedley Agree Noted. No change.

5 Iain Martin Strongly agree Noted. No change.

6 Richard Ware Neither agree nor disagree

Noted. No change.

30


Question 6a: To what extent do you agree that the requirements set out in Appendix 1 and 2 are fair, justified and realistic?

31


Question 6b: To what extent do you think the requirements set out pose any significant barriers to the delivery of development proposals?

Note re ‘unknown value’: The reason for the ‘unknown value’ is due to an administrative error that resulted in the wrong scale being included for this question. This was rectified early on in the consultation process, however 2 people had completed the survey before this. These respondents answered ‘disagree’ (ID 1) and ‘neither agree nor disagree’ (ID 2).

32


Question 6c & 6d - Do you have any comments on the Council requiring viability review mechanisms to maximise policy compliance?

ID Number

Respondent Question 6c: Do you have any comments on the Council requiring viability review

mechanisms to maximise policy compliance?

Question 6d: Do you have any other comments?


1 Caroline Cheales 1. should have a cap and collar - this gives some certainty to both parties and should reduce subsequent arguments review mechanisms should include exclusions to remove incentives to game the process and should certainly remove the ability to inflate costs between connected parties (for example supplier, builder, developer) to move profit outside of the assessment boundary

2. there should be some mechanism to deal with gaming the process - parties should demonstrably act in good faith. if a developer is found to have used methods to distribute profits outside of the assessment boundary, there should be some mechanism to be able to take this into account.

1 & 2. Comments noted. The SPD encourages the use of review mechanisms, the detail of which will be determined on a case by case basis.

No change.

2 Stuart Hartley

1. Question 6B makes no sense. The statement does not result in agreement or disagreement. 2. However, I believe that assessments do not prevent delivery of development proposals.

1. The council apologise for the formatting error on the online consultation portal, this was noticed early into the consultation period and rectified. The council will avoid this happening again in the future. 2. Comment Noted

No change.

3 ctshah 1. This is a load of meaningless drivel. No doubt the council has agreed this wording, that will have no effect on anything, with the developers. For example, how does the section on developer profit show how limits will be set in any way on the profits that developers can make?

2. When will this council start making sound business decisions and develop policy and strategy in a truly democratic and meaningful way? This country's local government system is broke.

1 & 2. Comments noted. No change.

4 Russell Pedley 1. Ensure viability assessments recognise Build to Rent PRS and focuses on net operating income rather that capital values.

1. The Council has amended the SPD to include Net Operating Income (where appropriate) in the Gross Development Value section of the Detailed Requirement Schedules for both Residential Led Schemes and Commercial Led Schemes


6 Richard Ware 1. For some developments an extreme barrier


33



ID Name

5 Iain Martin

34


Question 7 - Do you have any other comments in relation to development viability and the planning process, or any other matters that you deem important for this SPD consultation?

ID Number

Respondent Question 7: Do you have any other comments in relation to planning obligations in the planning process, or any other matters that you

deem important for this SPD consultation?


1 Caroline Cheales 1. this is a contentious area and the general feeling is that the council and community are getting a raw deal. this goes some way to plugging the gap but i would like to see more mechanisms for dealing with developers who game the system to reduce their contributions. i'd also like to see a cap and collar arrangement built in. the planning regime in an area has an effect on the land values, and a soft regime inflates ELV without any benefit passing to the community. i'm not entirely sure how this can be addressed.


2 Stuart Hartley 1. This consultation is not designed for residents. It is far too technical in dealing with one (albeit important) element of development in the borough. This is not the only consultation like this and it is sadly not going to improve response rates.

1. Community involvement and engagement on planning matters is important, and councils are legally required to involve communities in the planning process. This is set out in the Town and Country Planning Act (Local Planning) (England) Regulation 2012 and the importance of which is emphasised in the National Planning Policy Framework.

The council recognise that there is a higher than usual amount of jargon and technical language used in this document, and try to avoid this as much is feasibly possible. However, the subject of this SPD is a particularly technical one, and its intended audience (commercial landowners and developers) means that the language and form of the SPD needs to reflect this to ensure it is effective in its intended use. Nethertheless, it is important for us to give residents the chance to have their say on all planning documents.

No change.

3 ctshah 1. Why has Kingston Council embarked on a development strategy of the size and scale it has with no mandate to do so from residents in the Borough? 2. What is the point of this SPD given it is full of jargon and generalities that will allow developers to do anything they like?

Comment Noted 2. Supplementary Planning Documents (SPD) add further detail to Kingston’s Local Development Framework. They are used to provide further guidance for development and once adopted become a material consideration in the planning process. This means that when planning applications come forward, their merit is assessed against its ability to comply with the council’s Local Development Framework, and the guidance set out in relevant SPDs. Importantly, the SPDs are intended to strengthen the council’s position in regard to securing contributions towards community infrastructure and ensuring that development policies/plans as well as planning applications that come forward are deliverable.

No change.

35


The council recognise that there is a higher than usual amount of jargon and technical language used in this document, and try to avoid this as much is feasibly possible. However, the subject of this SPD is a particularly technical one, and its intended audience (commercial landowners and developers) means that the language and form of the SPD needs to reflect this to ensure it is effective in its intended use. Nethertheless, it is important for us to give residents the chance to have their say on all planning documents.

4 Russell Pedley 1. No further comments 1. Comment noted. No change.

5 Iain Martin 1. More transparency needed. 1. Comment noted. No change.

6 Richard Ware 1. Financial Viability in Planning Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) The following comments are made with the benefit of my experience of being an estimator/cost planner for a large national contractor and dealing with clients, developers and QSâ€™s for over 15 years prior to my retirement. I assume the purpose of this SPD is to provide the Council a scrutiny procedure over developers Financial Viability Assessments in respect of ascertaining realistic contributions that developers can make for the provision off social housing plus the other S106 areas mentioned as local infrastructure but not captured by CIL One has to ask whether the Councilâ€™s plans in this respect is a one off by Kingston or is this to be rolled out by Councils generally and does the procedure have any legal enforcement? Although the aspirations of the SPD are laudable and well researched I have my doubts as to whether it will achieve its desired goals. I concede it will provide greater rigor than that is currently in place but wouldnâ€™t anything. This will only work providing the Developer enters into these procedures in a spirit of openness and transparency hence my comment regarding legal enforcement. Is it likely the developer who has all the financial information, which he has paid good money for and thus which is his, to then pass such information over to others to give them the means to justify the imposition of obligations which could possibly cost him large sums of money? Some might where the sums are small but for the multi million pound schemes it is unlikely, well the factual details anyway. Thus if the schemes costs cannot be agreed by Council officers then the proposals allow for the introduction of an independent Q.S. to interrogate the financial information. The cost for providing this service it is proposed will be paid for by the developer. The developer needs to be made aware early of the implications of the above document together with those of the â€œDraft Planning Obligationsâ€ unless these SPDâ€™s are to become legally enforceable procedures as part of the planning submission process. If this is not the case what happens if the cost of the development cannot be agreed? Can the Council refuse permission on a financial basis alone and can the developer appeal? Who pays the independent QS, who I assume will be appointed by the council and thus his financial responsibility, in a disputed situation where the developer refuses to pay. I cannot stress too much how protracted and acrimonious financial negotiations such as these can become.

1. Comments noted No change.

36


All an independent QS can do is to provide guidance where he feels cost are incorrect or unwarranted but in few cases will he will be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the costs are wrong. Every development is different and unique thus historical cost information records can provide, at best, guidance within a plus/minus factor. Bare in mind on building works the overall cost are derided from not only the cost of an item but how many there are. Thus the QS would need all the quantities. If this is not forthcoming from the developer then he will have to establish these as well. More time, more cost. To be quite honest if you want prices checked then the best source is a building contractor suitable for the size of the development being checked who can call on all the expertise of his supply chain (sub-contractors/suppliers) who are at the end of the day the ones who actually price and carry out the bulk of all building works. There are certain works such as the north west corner of the works at the Tolworth Tower development that involve specialist concrete breaking out of existing buildings and foundations and forming a new basement next to a busy footpath and highway in a confined area. This I would contend a QS can only â€œguestimateâ€ at best or â€œfinger in the airâ€ at worst. In the old days Clients/Developers would put in place a design team develop that to Architectural Design Stage E, get a QS to prepare a detailed Bill of Quantities(B of Qâ€™s) for pricing by contractors and then go out to tender. Now the current vogue is for Clients/Developers to get a design team to do a base design then get rid of them. Get a good firm of legally minded QSâ€™s to prepare Client /Developer(though not contractor) friendly contract conditions, Employers Requirements and preliminaries and then pass it all over to the Contractor to develop a Design and Build tender. This involves all the contractors in heavy tendering costs in design development fees and B of Qâ€™s preparation. This process does not necessarily gives the Client/Developer the cheapest works cost but provides them with cost certainty and minimises their financial risk. The information on which the works are price is not usually up to Stage E and this is where the dark arts of estimating works to give a guaranteed definitive price but only on limited information comes into play mainly by the use of contingencies. These are not always revealed to their full extent but are distributed through the priced works. This can distort the prices which sometimes can make the priced work appear higher than the checkers would expect. I provide the information above as an indication that to get a contact cost for any development will be a challenge and that spending a lot of time and money on trying to close differences may not resolve. If you have a very cooperative, open book Developer then there will be no problem but on large scale developments these are likely to be as common as the dodo. This is only for the expense side of the equation then there is the return side to consider, rent, sales etc. The task is enormous and at the end of the day will probably end up as a Dutch Auction agreement. Something similar to the CIL charges would be much better if a suitable formula can be put in place. As a final thought with pressures for contributions to meet social housing targets then inappropriately dense developments could be proposed as a way to meet these requirements thus the SPD could inadvertently give rise to inappropriate development. It is to be hoped that the integrity of Council officers will not allow this. I trust my

37


commentary has given you some food for thought RJ Ware

Question 8a & 8b - Do you think that the information held in this draft SPD should be integrated into the Council's Planning Obligations SPD?

38


ID Number

Respondent Question 8a - Do you think that the information held in

this draft SPD should be integrated into the Council's Planning Obligations SPD?

Question 8b - Please comment


1 Caroline Cheales Yes with changes 1. AUV - needs to be beefed up before it is taken into account. this should be a proceedable use, not speculative

1. Comments noted No change.

2 Stuart Hartley Yes with changes 1. No redaction should be allowed. 1. Comment noted. No change.

3 ctshah No 1. I think the Council should ask the people of Kingston if they want to pursue a strategy for growth on the scale and of the type the council is planning, and ask people in each locality if they want the development planned for their area.


4 Russell Pedley Yes Noted. No change.

5 Iain Martin Yes with changes Noted. No change.

6 Richard Ware

1. Need consultation with Developers 1. Comment Noted No change.

39


Question 9a & 9b - Are there any parts of the SPD that are unclear?

40


ID Number

Respondent Question 9a - Are there any parts of the SPD that

are unclear?

Question 9b - If so, please specify


1 Caroline Cheales No Noted. No change.

2 Stuart Hartley Yes 1. This is a technical document. It is unreasonable to expect residents to understand entirely and comment without any form of training/education


No change.

3 ctshah Yes 1. All of it. It is too general and full of jargon that is not explained. As a business analyst, I am appalled that a Council can contemplate embarking on such a massive growth strategy with no mandate from the people of the Borough and backed by such a trivial and meaningless Planning SPD.


No change.

4 Russell Pedley No Noted. No change.

5 Iain Martin No Noted. No change.

6 Richard Ware Yes 1. You need to be well versed in the Councils planning procedures and protocols to fully understand the SPD which is why I have passed no comments on the "Draft Planning Obligations". Would be helpful to have an explanation list for all the acronyms.


No change.

41