publication salford local plan: development management ... · road salford m7 2la 0.23 148 34 3 8...

Publication Salford Local Plan: Development Management Policies and Designations Assessment of residential viability -annexes Salford City Council January 2020

ANNEX A – Review of the size, density, number of bedrooms and

dwelling type in a sample of permitted / completed developments

Annex A - Review of the size, density, number of bedroom and house type in a sample of permitted / completed developments

Typology 1: Development of houses

Value area Planning

application number

Address Gross site

area

(hectares)

Net site

area

(hectares)

Gross to

net ratio

Total

dwellings

Gross

dwellings

per hectare

Net

dwellings

per hectare

1 bed 2 bed 3 bed 4 bed 5 bed Semi/mews Townhouses Detached

Low 11/61060/FUL Land Formerly Stowell

Spire Eccles New Road

Salford

0.28 0.24 86% 14 50 58 14 14

Low 10/59380/DEEM3 Bridson Street Salford M5

5 NL

0.45 0.34 76% 20 44 59 20 20

Low/mid 13/63563/REM Land At Chedworth

Crescent, Amblecote Drive

West, Little Hulton Salford

1.10 1.05 95% 34 31 32 16 18 34

Low/mid 12/61940/HYB Land At Chedworth



2.61 2.31 89% 78 30 34 23 37 18 78

Low/mid 08/55932/FUL Former Builders Yard

Brakesmere

GroveWorsley,

0.54 0.54 100% 30 56 56 16 14 30

Low/mid 17/69416/FUL Land Formerly Our Lady

The Lancashire Martyrs

School Wicheaves Crescent

Worsley M28 0HF

1.65 1.65 100% 73 44 44 5 62 6 72 1

Low/mid 17/71136/FUL Land Facing Playing Fields

Duchy Road Salford M6

7JQ

1.49 1.49 100% 72 48 48 65 7 65 7

Low/mid 17/71019/FUL Land At Old Lane Little

Hulton

1.69 1.69 100% 83 49 49 40 43 80 3

Low/mid 17/70012/NMA Land Between Graythorpe

Walk And Aylesbury Close

Salford

1.01 1.01 100% 42 42 42 14 22 6 42

Mid 14/65709/FUL Land Off Teneriffe Street,

Great Clowes Street

Salford

1.03 1.03 100% 54 52 52 27 27 53 1

Mid 12/62582/EIAHYB Land Bounded By Lower

Broughton Road, Great

Clowes Street, Cumberland

Street And Wheaters

Street Lower Broughton

Salford M7 1QE

5.89 4.87 83% 189 32 39 126 63 89 1

Mid 14/65591/FUL Former Meadows Campus

Site Meadow Road Salford

2.70 2.49 92% 93 34 37 41 52 70 23

Mid 15/65877/FUL Former Seedley Primary

School Liverpool Street

Salford M6 5GY

1.19 1.19 100% 60 50 50 24 36 53 7

Mid 14/65707/FUL Land Formerly Tootal Drive

Primary School Tootal

Drive Salford

0.51 0.51 100% 26 51 51 10 16 24 2

Mid 15/67235/FUL Land Bound By Birch Road,

Laburnum Road &

Hawthorn Avenue

Walkden, M28 7EF - 6 apts

excluded from site area

(0.04ha) and dwelling nos.

2.30 1.87 81% 88 38 47 12 69 7 42 43 3

Mid 16/68314/REM The Poet's Estate, Swinton,

Salford, M27 0PU

0.88 0.88 100% 48 55 55 24 24 48

Mid 14/65312/FUL Pendleton College, De La

Salle College, Weaste Lane,

Salford, M6 8QS

1.09 1.04 95% 45 41 43 42 3 23 22

Mid 14/64415/FUL Land Facing 2 To 26

Thorpe Street, Worsley

0.70 0.70 100% 39 56 56 25 14 39

Mid 16/69039/FUL Whittlebrook House Trinity

Crescent Worsley M28 3LG

0.20 0.20 100% 10 51 51 6 4 10

Mid 16/69146/FUL Land Between Willows

Road And Whiteside Close

Salford

0.48 0.48 100% 24 50 50 10 14 22 2

Mid/high 16/68875/REM Burgess Farm Hilton Lane

Worsley Manchester M28

3TL

6.10 5.72 94% 179 29 31 6 70 103 77 102


Worsley M28 3TL

5.90 4.89 83% 145 25 30 51 94 43 102

Mid/high 16/67831/REM Land Off Cranleigh Drive

Worsley Salford M28 7ES

0.87 0.74 85% 15 17 20 15 15

Mid/high 12/62660/REM Former Gus Home

Shopping Ltd Worsley

Road Eccles M30 8NR

4.77 4.20 88% 175 37 42 4 119 52 106 69

Mid/high 17/70853/FUL Campbell Road Playing

Fields Campbell Road

Swinton M27 5GQ

16.91 7.02 42% 241 14 34 10 119 105 7 95 146

Mid/high 16/69232/FUL Salford City College

Walkden Sixth Form

Centre Walkden Road

Worsley M28 7QD

0.89 0.89 100% 26 29 29 17 9 17 9

Mid/high 15/67254/EIAHYB Land Located South Of The

River Irwell And West Of

Littleton Road Centred On

Whit Lane Charlestown M6

6HP

8.75 6.68 76% 267 31 40 94 159 14 267

Mid/high 15/66785/FUL Agecroft Road Pendlebury

Swinton

3.67 2.67 73% 107 29 40 84 23 50 57

Mid/high 16/68401/FUL Land Opposite Agecroft

Cemetery Langley Road

Pendlebury M27 8SS

1.44 1.29 90% 60 42 47 17 39 4 56 4

Bedrooms - number Type of dwelling - number

Mid/high 16/69279/FUL Former Hope High School

Eccles Old Road Salford

M6 8GG

2.15 1.91 89% 64 30 34 39 25 45 19

High 16/67617/REM Land Rear Of Vicars Hall

Lane Worsley Salford M28

1ZS

2.27 2.17 96% 66 29 30 4 20 27 15 26 40

High 17/70025/REM Land Off Highclove Lane

Boothstown Salford M28

1ZQ

3.99 3.57 89% 107 27 30 38 69 41 66

High 15/66990/REM Land Formerly Mitchell

Shackleton Green Lane

Eccles Salford

3.79 3.56 94% 140 37 39 101 39 69 71

Premium 16/68118/FUL Oldfield Road Salford

(Carpino Place)

0.32 0.32 100% 22 69 69 21 1 22

Premium 14/65810/REM Land Bounded By

Cleminson Street, Great

George Street, Bank

Street, St Philip's Place And

Encombe Place, Salford

(Timekeeprs Square)

0.54 0.54 100% 36 67 67 20 13 3 36

Premium 19/73075/REM Zone L - land to rear of

former Salford Royal

Hospital

0.55 0.55 100% 33 60 60 4 23 6 33

Typology 2: Development of mid density apartments

Value area Planning

application number

Address Net site area

(hectares)

Net

dwellings

per hectare

Total

dwellings

Maximum

height

1 bed 2 bed 3+ bed Car

parking

spaces

Parking

ratio

Low 16/68510/FUL 525-531 Eccles New Road,

Salford, M50 1FB

0.07 229 16 4 7 9 0 7 44%

Mid 17/70539/REM Land To The Rear Kersal

Avenue / Bolton Road

Pendlebury Swinton

0.85 42 36 3 36 46 128%

Mid 17/70901/FUL Former Radclyffe

Community Primary School

Phoebe Street Salford M5

3PH

0.45 87 39 3 15 12 12 39 100%

Mid 14/64798/OUT Manchester Alloys &

Metals, Meadow Road,

Salford, M7 1PA

0.43 98 42 4 10 30 2 37 88%

Mid 18/72315/FUL Land Adjacent To 44

Haddon Road Eccles M30

7BB

0.09 133 12 2 12 6 50%

Mid 18/71546/FUL Land at Clarence Street,

Lower Broughton, Salford

M7 1AH

2.02 148 299 6 100 189 10 197 66%

Mid 15/66265/FUL Site Of New Apartments,

Barton Road, Eccles

0.23 157 36 3 16 20 36 100%

Mid 16/68643/FUL 71 Barton Road, Eccles,

M30 7AE

0.13 192 25 4 9 16 22 88%

Mid/high 17/70103/FUL 6 and 8 Legh Street,

Salford, M7 4EF

0.17 60 10 3 2 6 2 6 60%

Mid/high 14/64652/FUL Wellington Street

East/Rigby Street, Salford,

M7 2AU

0.27 70 19 4 9 10 19 100%

Mid/high 16/68969/FUL Tyne Court, Worsley, M28

0SN

0.49 73 36 3 18 18 7 19%

Mid/high 05/50095/FUL 268-272 Lower Broughton

Road Salford M7 2LA

0.23 148 34 3 8 19 7 20 59%

Mid/high 17/70056/FUL Land Formerly Griffin

Hotel, Lower Broughton

Road, Salford

0.28 204 57 6 10 47 51 89%

Mid/high 15/66953/FUL Former Hyde Park Corner

Public House, 100 Silk

Street, Salford, M3 6LZ

0.18 211 38 4 19 19 17 45%

Mid/high 15/66790/FUL Riverside House 100

Blackfriars Road Salford,

M3 7FU

0.21 219 46 7 4 21 21 30 65%

High 15/67275/FUL Fox Street, Eccles, Salford,

M30 0BJ

0.23 104 24 5 20 4 6 25%

High 18/72004/REM Former Barton Sports Club,

Barton Lane, Eccles, M30

0FR

0.37 130 48 3 24 24 40 83%

High 16/68613/FUL Corporation Road, Eccles,

M30 0EQ

0.16 206 33 3 18 15 13 39%

Typology 3: Development of high density apartments

Value area Planning

application number

Address Net site area

(hectares)

Net

dwellings

per hectare

Total

dwellings

Maximum

height

1 bed 2 bed 3+ bed Car

parking

spaces

Parking

ratio

High 15/67048/FUL Gresham Mill, South Hall

Street, Salford, M5 4TP

0.89 160 142 7 37 88 17 67 47%

High 13/63658/FUL Land to the rear of Ordsall

Sports Centre, Off Elmira

Way, M5 3DA

0.635 198 126 6 24 102 86 68%

High 14/64851/FUL Land at Wilburn Street,

Salford

1.35 364 491 21 58 390 43 149 30%

High 15/66357/FUL Land Ordsall Lane Between

Dyer Street, Everard

Street, Salford

0.55 400 220 8 86 90 31 79 36%

High 13/64082/FUL Vacant land bounded by

Trafford Road and Elmira

Way, Salford

0.235 596 140 11 26 114 38 27%

High 15/66380/FUL Land at the corner of

Ordsall Lane and Woden

Street, Salford

0.085 624 53 8 27 20 6 15 28%

Bedrooms - number

Bedrooms - number

High 18/71363/FUL Land at Worrall Street,

Salford, M5 4TH

0.12 717 86 9 31 54 1 8 9%

Premium 15/67509/REM Plots C1, D1 And E1 Blue

Mediacityuk Salford M50

2EQ

1.46 326 476 20 268 170 38 337 71%

Premium 15/66404/REM Land adjacent to Premier

Inn, South Of Stanley

Street, Salford

0.27 333 90 11 40 40 10 7 8%

Premium 14/65820/FUL Land west of Adelphi

Street and south of Trinity

Riverside, Salford.

0.596 346 206 8 97 89 13 86 42%

Premium 16/68904/REM Middlewood Locks - phase

2

1.559 350 546 10 208 285 53 149 27%

Premium 15/67396/REM Former cinema site,

Clippers Quay, Salford,

M50 3XP

1.1 369 406 16 137 222 47 125 31%

Premium 14/65413/HYB Former Cinema Site,

Clippers Quay, Salford, M5

2XP - Full permission

0.56 371 208 9 32 160 16 76 37%

Premium 15/66520/FUL Weir Site, Adelphi, Street,

Salford, M3 6EN

0.935 410 383 7 209 150 24 209 55%

Premium 15/67356/FUL The Crescent, Salford, M5

4PF

0.76 525 399 21 156 223 20 59 15%

Premium 17/70615/FUL 4-26 Liverpool Street

Salford M5 4LE

0.23 552 127 9 62 57 8 26 20%

Premium 17/70626/FUL Embankment West, off

Salford Approach and New

Kings Head Yard, Chapel

Street, Salford

0.628 567 356 18 171 170 15 2 1%

Premium 14/65224/FUL Land at Chapel Street

bounded by Clowes Street,

River Irwell and Dearmans

Place, Salford, M3 5LH

1.75 569 995 23 500 489 6 375 38%

Premium 16/69266/NMA 5 Hulme Street, Salford,

M5 4PX

0.46 572 263 18 96 137 83 32%

Premium 15/66415/FUL Land bounded by Gore

Street, Trinity Way and

Chapel Street, Salford

0.64 586 375 22 97 228 39 107 29%

Premium 14/65407/FUL Land bounded by Trinity

Way, Blackfriars Road,

Bury Street and Garden

Lane Salford

0.58 660 383 17 137 239 7 65 17%

Premium 16/68977/FUL Salford Skills Centre, 2

Liverpool Street, Salford,

M5 4LE

0.27 707 191 14 91 54 33 40 21%

Premium 15/67019/REM Land adjacent to Plot A5 of

Salford Central

Masterplan, Stanley Street,

Salford

0.16 844 135 16 60 60 15 3 2%

Premium 16/69216/FUL Erie Basin Salford Quays 0.28 964 270 16 120 120 30 30 11%

Premium 13/63524/FUL Land bounded by

Greengate, New Bridge

Street, Gorton Street and

the River Irwell, Salford

0.51 975 497 31 26 400 64 248 50%

Premium 17/70082/REM Plot A7 Of The Salford

Central Zones A And C

Masterplan Land

Surrounding Stanley Street

Bound By Trinity Way,

Irwell Street And River

Irwell M3 5DA

0.2 995 199 21 98 81 20 0 0%

Premium 16/67659/FUL 30 Frederick Road, Salford,

M6 6NY

0.25 1084 271 8 271 35 13%

Premium 15/66806/FUL Norton Court Greengate

Salford M3 7NS

0.186 1613 300 34 124 153 23 31 10%

Premium 14/65048/FUL Land at 16 Chapel Street,

Salford, M3 7NH

0.148 1628 241 17 224 13 4 0 0%

Premium 16/67809/FUL Greengate, Salford, M3

7NG

0.18 1939 349 44 48 268 33 83 24%

Premium 15/66481/FUL Land on the south west

side of Michigan Avenue,

Salford, M50 2GY

1.12 982 1100 26 550 500 50 211 19%

Annex B - Further review of the size / house type from a sample of permitted and completed developments

Annex B - Further review of the size / house type from a sample of permitted and completed developments

Typology 1: Development of houses

Value area

Planning

application

number

Address

1 bed 2 bed 3 bed 4 bed 5 bed Total

Total no. units 14 14

Semi / mews 14 14

Townhouses

Detached

Total no. units 20 20

Semi / mews 20 20

Townhouses

Detached

Total no. units 16 18 34

Semi / mews 16 18 34

Townhouses

Detached

No. units 23 37 18 78

Semi / mews 23 37 18 78

Townhouses

Detached

No. units 16 14 30


Townhouses

Detached

No. units 5 62 6 73

Semi / mews 5 61 6 72

Townhouses 1 1

Detached

No. units 65 7 72

Semi / mews 65 65

Townhouses

Detached 7 7

No. units 40 43 83


Townhouses

Detached 3 3

No. units 14 22 6 42

Semi / mews 14 22 6 42

Townhouses

Detached

No. units 27 27 54


Townhouses

Detached 1 1

No. units 126 63 189

Semi / mews 89 89

Townhouses 0

Detached 37 63 100

No. units 41 52 93


Townhouses

Detached 14 9 23

No. units 24 36 60


Townhouses

Detached 7 7

No. units 10 16 26


Townhouses

Detached 2 2

No. units 12 69 7 88


Townhouses 39 4 43

Detached 3 3

No. units 24 24 48


Townhouses

Detached

No. units 42 3 45

Semi / mews 23 23

Townhouses



Salford, M6 8QS

Mid 15/67235/FUL Land Bound By Birch Road,

Laburnum Road &

Hawthorn Avenue

Walkden, M28 7EF - 6 apts

Mid 16/68314/REM The Poet's Estate, Swinton,

Salford, M27 0PU

Mid 15/65877/FUL Former Seedley Primary

School Liverpool Street

Salford M6 5GY

Mid 14/65707/FUL Land Formerly Tootal Drive

Primary School Tootal

Drive Salford

Mid 12/62582/EIAHY

B

Land Bounded By Lower

Broughton Road, Great

Clowes Street, Cumberland

Street And Wheaters Street

Mid 14/65591/FUL Former Meadows Campus

Site Meadow Road Salford

Low/mid 17/70012/NMA Land Between Graythorpe

Walk And Aylesbury Close

Salford

Mid 14/65709/FUL Land Off Teneriffe Street,

Great Clowes Street Salford

Low/mid 17/71136/FUL Land Facing Playing Fields

Duchy Road Salford M6

7JQ

Low/mid 17/71019/FUL Land At Old Lane Little

Hulton

Low/mid 08/55932/FUL Former Builders Yard

Brakesmere GroveWorsley

MANCHESTER M28 6AY

Low/mid 17/69416/FUL Land Formerly Our Lady

The Lancashire Martyrs

School Wicheaves Crescent

Worsley M28 0HF

Low/mid 13/63563/REM Land At Chedworth



Low/mid 12/61940/HYB Land At Chedworth



Houses - number

Low 11/61060/FUL Land Formerly Stowell

Spire Eccles New Road

Salford

Low 10/59380/DEEM3 Bridson Street Salford M5 5

NL

Detached 19 3 22

No. units 25 14 39


Townhouses

Detached

No. units 6 4 10

Semi / mews 6 4 10

Townhouses

Detached

No. units 10 14 24

Semi / mews 8 14 22

Townhouses

Detached 2 2

No. units 6 70 103 179

Semi / mews 6 62 9 77

Townhouses

Detached 8 94 102

No. units 51 94 145

Semi / mews 43 43

Townhouses

Detached 8 94 102

No. units 15 15

Semi / mews

Townhouses

Detached 15 15

No. units 4 119 52 175

Semi / mews 4 87 15 106

Townhouses

Detached 32 37 69

No. units 10 119 105 7 241

Semi / mews 10 71 14 95

Townhouses 0

Detached 48 91 7 146

No. units 17 9 26

Semi / mews 17 17

Townhouses

Detached 9 9

No. units 94 159 14 267

Semi / mews 94 159 14 267

Townhouses

Detached

No. units 84 23 107

Semi / mews 44 6 50

Townhouses 0

Detached 40 17 57

No. units 17 39 4 60


Townhouses

Detached 4 4

No. units 39 25 64


Townhouses

Detached 8 11 19

No. units 4 20 27 15 66

Semi / mews 4 20 2 26

Townhouses

Detached 25 15 40

No. units 38 69 107


Townhouses

Detached 11 55 66

No. units 101 39 140

Semi / mews 69 69

Townhouses

Detached 32 39 71

No. units 21 1 22

Semi / mews

Townhouses 21 1 22

Detached

No. units 20 13 3 36

Semi / mews

Townhouses 20 13 3 36

Detached

No. units 4 23 6 33

Semi / mews

Premium 14/65810/REM Land Bounded By

Cleminson Street, Great

George Street, Bank Street,

St Philip's Place And



Hospital

High 15/66990/REM Land Formerly Mitchell

Shackleton Green Lane

Eccles Salford

Premium 16/68118/FUL Oldfield Road Salford

(Carpino Place)

High 16/67617/REM Land Rear Of Vicars Hall

Lane Worsley Salford M28

1ZS

High 17/70025/REM Land Off Highclove Lane

Boothstown Salford M28

1ZQ

Mid/high 16/68401/FUL Land Opposite Agecroft

Cemetery Langley Road

Pendlebury M27 8SS

Mid/high 16/69279/FUL Former Hope High School

Eccles Old Road Salford M6

8GG

Mid/high 15/67254/EIAHYB Land Located South Of The

River Irwell And West Of

Littleton Road Centred On

Whit Lane Charlestown M6

Mid/high 15/66785/FUL Agecroft Road Pendlebury

Swinton

Mid/high 17/70853/FUL Campbell Road Playing

Fields Campbell Road

Swinton M27 5GQ

Mid/high 16/69232/FUL Salford City College

Walkden Sixth Form Centre

Walkden Road Worsley

M28 7QD

Mid/high 16/67831/REM Land Off Cranleigh Drive

Worsley Salford M28 7ES

Mid/high 12/62660/REM Former Gus Home

Shopping Ltd Worsley Road

Eccles M30 8NR


Worsley Manchester M28

3TL


Worsley M28 3TL

Mid 16/69039/FUL Whittlebrook House Trinity

Crescent Worsley M28 3LG

Mid 16/69146/FUL Land Between Willows

Road And Whiteside Close

Salford



Salford, M6 8QS

Mid 14/64415/FUL Land Facing 2 To 26 Thorpe

Street, Worsley

Townhouses 4 23 6 33

Detached

Summary - all value areas

Total no. schemes

1b 2b 3b 4b 5b Total

Total dwellings 0 370 1,634 779 22 2,805

Semi/mews 0 344 1,267 189 0 1,800

Townhouses 0 24 97 14 0 135

Detached 0 2 270 576 22 870


Total dwellings 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Semi/mews 93% 78% 24% 0% 64%

Townhouses 6% 6% 2% 0% 5%

Detached 1% 17% 74% 100% 31%

Low value area

Total no. schemes


Total dwellings 0 0 34 0 0 34

Semi/mews 0 0 34 0 0 34

Townhouses 0 0 0 0 0 0

Detached 0 0 0 0 0 0


Total dwellings 100% 100%

Semi/mews 100% 100%

Townhouses 0% 0%

Detached 0% 0%

Low/mid value area

Total no. schemes



Semi/mews 0 98 259 44 0 401


Detached 0 0 3 7 0 10


Total dwellings 100% 100% 100% 100%

Semi/mews 100% 98% 86% 97%

Townhouses 0% 0% 0% 0%

Detached 0% 1% 14% 2%

Mid value area

Total no. schemes



Semi/mews 0 111 305 57 0 473


Detached 0 2 80 78 0 160



Semi/mews 98% 72% 41% 70%

Townhouses 9% 3% 6%

Detached 2% 19% 56% 24%

Mid/high value area

Total no. schemes


Total dwellings 0 131 697 444 7 1279

Semi/mews 0 131 553 72 0 756


Detached 0 0 144 372 7 523


Total dwellings 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Semi/mews 100% 79% 16% 59%

Townhouses

Detached 21% 84% 100% 41%

High value area

Total no. schemes



Hospital



Semi/mews 0 4 116 16 0 136


Detached 0 0 43 119 15 177


Total dwellings 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Semi/mews 100% 73% 12% 0% 43%

Townhouses 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Detached 0% 27% 88% 100% 57%

Premium value area

Total no. schemes



Semi/mews 0 0 0 0 0 0

Townhouses 0 24 57 10 0 91

Detached 0 0 0 0 0 0



Semi/mews

Townhouses 100% 100% 100% 100%

Detached

Annex C – Assumed dwelling mix

Scheme typology

Value area(s)

Site size

Total number of dwellings

Mix of dwellings

Houses at 65pdh

Premium 0.5ha 33 houses Of the total 33 houses, 25% are 2 bed, 65% are 3 bed and 10% are 4 bed. These are comprised as follows: 8x2 bed townhouses 21x3 bed townhouses 4x4 bed townhouses

Houses at 35 dph

High and mid/high

2ha 70 houses Of the total 70 houses, 10% are 2 bed, 55% are 3 bed, 30% are 4 bed and 5% are 5 bed. These are comprised as follows: 7x2 bed semi/mews 28x3 bed semi/mews 10x3 bed detached 3x4 bed semi/mews 18x4 bed detached 4x5 bed detached

Houses at 40 dph

Mid 2ha 80 houses Of the total 80 houses, 15% are 2 bed, 65% are 3 bed and 20% are 4 bed. These are comprised as follows: 12x2 bed semi/mews 42x3 bed semi/mews 10x3 bed detached 6x4 bed semi/mews 10x4 bed detached

Houses at 45dph

Low/mid and low

2ha 90 houses Of the total 90 houses, 25% are 2 bed, 70% are 3 bed and 5% are 4 bed. These are comprised as follows: 23x2 bed semi/mews 62x3 bed semi/mews 4x4 bed semi/mews 1x4 bed detached

Scheme typology

Value area(s)

Site size

Total number of dwellings

Mix of dwellings

Mid density apartments

All 0.4ha 50 apartments

Of the total 50 apartments, 40% are 1 bed, 55% are 2 bed and 5% are 3 bed. These are comprised as follows: 20x1 bed apartment 27x2 bed apartment 3x3 bed apartment

High density apartments

All 2ha 330 apartments

Of the total 330 apartments, 40% are 1 bed, 50% are 2 bed and 10% are 3 bed. These are comprised as follows: 132x1 bed apartment 165x2 bed apartment 33x3 bed apartment

Annex D – Dwelling floorspace calculations Property type and size

National space standard type (gross internal floor area) (A)

Garage allowance (B)

Total gross floor area

(A+B) 1 bed apartment

1 storey dwelling 1 bedroom 2 bedspaces 50sqm

0sqm 50sqm

2 bed apartment

1 storey dwelling 2 bedrooms Mid-point between 3 and

4 bedspaces 65sqm

0sqm 65sqm

3 bed apartment

1 storey dwelling 3 bedrooms 5 bedspaces 86sqm

0sqm 86sqm

2 bed semi-detached /mews

2 storey dwelling 2 bedrooms Mid-point between 3

and 4 bedspaces 74.5sqm

0sqm 74.5sqm

2 bed townhouse


0sqm 85sqm

3 bed semi-detached /mews

2 storey dwelling 3 bedrooms 5 bedspaces

93sqm

0sqm 93sqm

3 bed detached


14sqm 107sqm

3 bed townhouse

3 storey dwelling 3 bedrooms 5 bedspaces

99sqm

0sqm 99sqm

Property type and size

National space standard type (gross internal floor area) (A)

Garage allowance (B)

Total gross floor area

(A+B) 4 bed semi detached / mews


0sqm 106sqm

4 bed detached


14sqm 120sqm

4 bed townhouse


0sqm 112sqm

5 bed detached house


14sqm 133sqm

Annex E - Total floorspace by scheme typology Scheme typology / value areas

Total dwellings

Mix of dwellings Floorspace

Houses at 65dph (Premium)

33 houses 8x2 bed townhouses 21x3 bed townhouses 4x4 bed townhouses

8x85sqm 21x99sqm 4x112sqm Total gross floorspace = 3,207sqm

Houses at 35dph (High and mid/high)

70 houses 7x2 bed semi/mews 28x3 bed semi/mews 10x3 bed detached 3x4 bed semi/mews 18x4 bed detached 4x5 bed detached

7x74.5sqm 28x93sqm 10x107sqm 3x106sqm 18x120sqm 4x133sqm Total gross floorspace = 7,206

Houses at 40dph (Mid)

80 houses 12x2 bed semi/mews 42x3 bed semi/mews 10x3 bed detached 6x4 bed semi/mews 10x4 bed detached

12x74.5sqm 42x93sqm 10x107sqm 6x106sqm 10x120sqm Total gross floorspace = 7,706sqm

Houses at 45dph (Low/mid and low)

90 houses 23x2 bed semi/mews 62x3 bed semi/mews 4x4 bed semi/mews 1x4 bed detached

23x74.5sqm 62x93sqm 4x106sqm 1x120sqm Total gross floorspace = 8,024sqm

Mid density apartments

50 apartments

20x1 bed apartment 27x2 bed apartment 3x3 bed apartment

20x50sqm 27x65sqm 3x86sqm Total net sellable floorspace = 3,013sqm

Scheme typology / value areas

Total dwellings

Mix of dwellings Floorspace

Divide by 0.85 to allow for common areas at 15% of gross Total gross floorspace = 3,545sqm

High density apartments

330 apartments

132x1 bed apartment 165x2 bed apartment 33x3 bed apartment

132x50sqm 165x65sqm 33x86sqm Total net sellable floorspace = 20,163sqm Divide by 0.825 to allow for common areas at 17.5% of gross Total gross floorspace = 24,440sqm

ANNEX F – Response to Draft Local Plan Representations

EVIDENCE BASE: ASSESSMENT OF RESIDENTIAL VIABILITY (November 2016) The city council has published an updated assessment of residential viability (January 2019) in support of the Revised Draft Local Plan.

Issue raised in the representations on the Draft Local Plan

How is this being addressed

General comments

Surprised the council has made no reference to the RICS Guidance Note, Financial Viability in Planning (2012) which forms a best practice documents informing preparation of viability assessments (Peel Holdings).

An additional chapter has been added to the Revised Draft Local Plan viability assessment setting out the policy / guidance context. This refers to the 2018 NPPF, updated planning practice guidance from July 2018, and other guidance on viability testing including the 2012 RICS Guidance Note.

Private rented sector

The PRS housing product (build to rent) is significantly different to standard housing built for sale. A range of assumptions will need to amended for such schemes, amongst other things: gross:net area reduction; achievable scheme sales value reflecting investor’s net yield expectations; build costs; and development cashflow (Peel Holdings).

Agree that PRS / build to rent products are significantly different to standard housing schemes that are built for sale. The national planning practice guidance on viability from July 2018 recognises this by stating that: “The economics of build to rent schemes differ from build for sale as they depend on a long term income stream. For build to rent it is expected that the normal form of affordable housing provision will be affordable private rent. Where plan makers wish to set affordable private rent proportions or discount levels at a level differing from national planning policy and guidance, this can be justified through a viability assessment at the plan making stage. Developers will be expected to comply with build to rent policy requirements.”1

1 Paragraph: 019 Reference ID: 10-019-20180724

In the Revised Draft Local Plan the city council has included a specific policy on build to rent which reflects affordable private rent proportions and discount levels that are the same as those in national policy and guidance (see policy H8). Given this, it is not considered necessary to undertake a viability assessment at the plan making stage for build to rent. Therefore, the Revised Draft Local Plan viability assessment focusses on the viability of developments of build for sale.

Evidence and modelling should be provided to assess the potential for build to rent housing to provide contributions towards affordable housing – it is essential that the city council acknowledge that on-site provision of affordable housing is not appropriate within build to rent schemes (Peel Holdings).

Planning practice guidance on build to rent2 (September 2018) makes it clear that the NPPF states that affordable housing on build to rent schemes should be provided by default on-site in the form of affordable private rent, and that 20% is generally a suitable benchmark, with a minimum rent discount of 20% relative to local housing markets. Therefore on-site provision of affordable private rent dwellings in build to rent schemes is considered appropriate. The Revised Draft plan includes a policy on build to rent to reflect this (H8).

Dwelling typologies

Peel Holdings made the comments below. Using a single typology for houses of 35 dwellings per hectare is inappropriate as it does not reflect market practice where high value developments will generate circa 30 dwellings per hectare and lower value circa 40 dwellings per hectare – a variable scale of development density should be used. Higher density in lower value areas and vice versa. A single mix of dwellings has been used across all typologies, including 2, 3, 4 and 5 bed houses. The mix will vary across value areas with smaller houses provided in lower value areas and larger houses in higher value areas. In particular:

It is recognised that the mix and density of dwellings in the houses typology will vary according to the value area. Therefore the Revised Draft Local Plan viability assessment ranges from 35 dwellings per hectare in the premium and high value areas, to 50 dwellings per hectare in the low/mid and low value areas. These densities take into account: A review of recent developments A general reduction in the level of 3 story townhouses being built

on sites over the last few years The provision of larger dwellings (including detached) in the

higher value areas and smaller dwellings in the lower value areas (which then impacts on the overall density)


The adopted mix appears to be more suited to the mid/high or

high/premium value areas rather than the low, low/mid, or mid value areas, with 4 and 5 bed dwellings

No provision made for 3 bed-semi-detached houses – average sites will include a greater number of 2 storey units in comparison to 3 storey units

Above reduces development density to 3,412sqm per hectare compared to council’s mix of 3,599sqm per hectare – this is a more much more appropriate average density to be applied across a range of value areas

Proposed unit mix should be evidenced to match current understanding of average scheme delivery.

Assumptions should be amended to reflect the value area being assessed.

A requirement in the Revised Draft Local Plan for a minimum density of 35dph

The dwelling mix for apartment schemes has also been reviewed having regard to recent completions and permissions.

No details provided in respect of parking provision for apartment schemes – apartments are only allocated a 5% allowance for works / infrastructure and this is an insufficient allowance to provide a reasonable level of on-site parking (Peel Holdings).

Taking into account the advice of Urban Vision Property Services, for the purposes of this strategic viability assessment it has been assumed that the build costs include infrastructure / external costs and therefore no additional separate allowance is proposed within the Revised Draft Local Plan viability assessment for this. The number of car parking spaces in high density apartment schemes will be minimal as evidenced by schemes recently completed, those under construction, or which have extant planning permission. Developers generally sell car parking spaces separately from the actual apartment, and there is evidence that this can range from around £10,000 to £20,000 per space. No allowance has been made for the sale of car parking spaces in high density schemes, which would contribute to the income a developer would receive from a scheme.

Peel Holdings commented that an allowance of 14sqm was made for all townhouses and detached dwellings to allow for a single garage.

A review of recent developments and sites with permission was undertaken to look at the levels of garages in new developments involving houses. This showed that that proportion of houses with

Peel commented that this increases values by between £22,400 and £42,000 per garage depending on value area. The scale of garage provision (89%) is excessive and reflects a

level of provision only found in the highest value areas Although garages add value to a dwelling, the increase is

excessive and unevidenced – it is not appropriate to apply the full sales rate on a per square metre basis

garages is higher in the higher value areas but there are still big differences between developments in the same value areas. For simplicity it has been assumed that all detached dwellings have a single garage of 14sqm. This results in garage provision of 66% in the family houses scheme in the premium and high value areas, to no provision of garages in the low/mid and low value areas for the houses typology. The full sales rate has been applied to the garage floorspace given that the city council does not have any evidence that different sales rates are commonly applied to garages and the rest of the house.

Peel Holdings stated that the calculation of gross internal area for assessment of apartment construction costs equates to a 15% reduction from gross internal area. They regard this as low and have evidence (from a recent Manchester City Centre development and Peel’s schemes at Chatham Waters and Liverpool Waters) to support an average 20% reduction from gross to net area.

The gross to net uplift for the mid density apartment scheme in the Revised Draft Local Plan viability assessment was taken as being 15% for mid density apartment typology, with a higher figure of 17.5% being applied to the high density apartments typology. It is recognised that in the market place, there will obviously be some variation in the specification of the final dwellings but the above is considered to be a reasonable assumption having regard to:

The HCA development appraisal tool states that an allowance of 15% for common areas may be a typical figure

Viability assessments submitted within Salford as part of planning applications

A review of other area-wide viability assessment for areas outside of Salford that have been published in support of Local Plans and CIL charging schedules.

Differences between build to sell and build to rent apartments should be modelled and acknowledged – build to rent schemes require increased gross areas to accommdoate additional common areas and facilities.

Build to rent schemes have not been modelled for reasons set out above.

Gross development value

Residential sales values Peel Holdings criticised the council’s approach of using asking prices from developer websites and Rightmove as follows: Asking prices do not reflect actual transaction levels which are

often discounted. Many property listings do not contain a floor plan or an estate

agents assessment of floor area, and it is not clear in these instances how the floor area has been calculated.

Some areas of the city are based on very limited evidence, with only 6 comparables.

The majority of the 300 properties looked at by the council appear to relate to asking prices dating from 2013/14 with only a limited number derived from 2016. Appears to be a rehash of evidence from 2015 Planning Obligations SPD – data not up to date and unsound.

Publicly available EPC data is a much more accurate and reliable source of unit sizes for resale units. Having regard to this, Peel Holdings has carried out an exercise looking at achieved sales values in the Premium, High and Mid/high value area for similar unit types and roads as used by the council. They have obtained sales values from Land Registry data (available on sites such as Rightmove) and floor areas from EPC data, and also made an allowance for garages of 14sqm (single) and 28sqm (double). As a result of this, four of the nine value areas looked at by Peel should be reclassified to a lower value area: Broughton Park, Swinton South, Boothstown and Worsley.

The sales values evidence base has been fully updated with 2017/18 data. It uses land registry price paid data and also the floorspace information from the EPC register, for the same dwelling, to calculate a sales value per square metre. Properties in new / recent residential developments have been identified using the city council’s development monitoring records. 725 properties have been assessed with a minimum sample size of 10 properties per area. Significantly higher number of properties have been considered in areas such as Chapel Street, Ordsall Riverside and Salford Quays given the large number of recent developments in these locations. The floorspace data from the EPCs does not include garages and so therefore an additional floorspace of 14 square metres was added to the EPC floorspace data for all detached dwellings (with the dwelling type being available from the land registry). This assumption is in line with an additional allowance of 14 square metres being added to the floorspace of detached dwellings in the family houses typology to allow for garages, and is considered appropriate for this plan making stage viability assessment Having regard to the above, the value areas have been updated. This has involved raising the values per sqm in the low areas from £1,600 to £1,800, and in the premium areas from £3,000 to £3,400. Value area Typical values

per sqm Premium £3,400 High £2,800 Mid/high £2,500 Mid £2,200 Low/mid £2,000 Low £1,800

Ground rents The application of ground rent reinvestment for houses is inappropriate and not generally reflective of market expectations. Houses are frequently sold on a freehold basis (Peel Holdings).

Since the viability assessment was produced for the Draft Local Plan, and consultation comments received on it, the government launched a crackdown on unfair practices within the leasehold system. Following a consultation the government has said it will legislate to prevent the sale of new build leasehold houses except where necessary such as shared ownership. Given the above it is not considered appropriate to make an allowance for ground rent from houses. Having regard to a review of recent viability assessments submitted to the council as part of planning applications and other strategic viability assessments, the ground rents for apartments previously adopted appear to be reasonable.

Scheme timings – build period The council assumes for the houses typology that the first unit will be sold after four months of the construction period. This does not reflect commercial reality; the standard assumption is 6 months construction prior to the first sale in month 7 (Peel Holdings).

Having regard to actual developments in Salford, the assumption for the houses typology is that the first sale is 4 months after the start of construction (with a 3 month lead in construction starts). This has been carried forward into the Revised Draft Local Plan viability assessment.

Scheme timings – sales period Peel Holdings commented that the council assumes a sales rate of 3.5 houses per month; this is in excess of current market conditions of 2.5-2.75 per month Peel further commented that the assumption that apartments start selling four months before construction end is unlikely as it will not be possible to achieve legal completion of sales prior to practical completion of the whole development. They further went on to state that:

Typically one third of apartments are reserved off-plan with

transactions completing upon completion of construction.

The sales rate has been reconsidered as part of the Revised Draft Local Plan viability assessment. The assumption for the houses typology that the first sale is 4 months after start of construction (7 months including lead-in time) has been carried forward, although the last housing market sale has been amended so that it is 4 months after construction end (rather than 2 months as in the Draft Local Plan viability assessment). This therefore represents a sales rate of around 3.3 houses per month, which is not considered excessive having regard to actual developments within Salford and the current housing market conditions. It is accepted that apartments will not be sold prior to construction end as the development would not be completed. Having regard to actual delivery of apartments schemes in the city, the reservation rate off-plan and also the remaining sales rates suggested by Peel is

Remaining apartments generally sold at 3-4 units per annum; applying sales of 4 per month this produces a 20 month post construction period for mid density apartment schemes and 25 months for high density schemes (compared to 6 months assumed by the council for both typologies).

not considered reflective of the apartment market in the city (particularly City Centre schemes). Given this, the Revised Draft plan residential viability assessment assumes that in the apartment typologies, 90% are reserved off-plan with transactions completed on construction finish. For the apartment typologies it has been assumed that the last market sale is 3 months after construction end.

Land acquisition costs

Maximum unencumbered land value Peel Holdings stated the following: The land values adopted for family housing sites is based on DCLG information, a publicly available data source. No evidence is provided to support the approach to the assessment of apartment land values. It appears the council has taken into account abnormal costs in determining a land value for the high density apartment scheme in the Premium and High value areas, given that the costs are “…having regard to known land values/transactions in these areas”. Abnormal costs are not included within the council’s appraisals and the different typologies are not assessed on a like for like basis

Achievable land transaction values for high density apartment sites equate to £15,000 to £20,000 per plot (the council has assumed £6,000 to £8,000). It is noted that UV through planning application negotiations have assumed £2,500 to £5,000 per plot for premium high density apartment schemes. This is without support in the market.

The city council has reconsidered benchmark land values having regard to the government’s planning practice guidance on viability that was published in July 2018. This states that to define land value for any viability assessment, a benchmark land value should be calculated on the basis of the existing use value (EUV) of the land, plus a premium for the landowner. The premium should provide a reasonable incentive, in comparison with other options available, for the landowner to sell land for development while allowing a sufficient contribution to comply with policy requirements. This approach is often called ‘existing use value plus’ (EUV+)3. For reasons set out within paragraphs 4.26 to paragraph 4.37 of the Revised Draft Local Plan viability assessment, benchmark land values of between £440,000 per hectare and £773,500 per hectare have been used (with this value including a premium for the landowner). A landowner premium of 20% has been applied to the EUV across all typologies except for the high density apartment typology where a 30% premium to the EUV is applied.

3Para 013. Reference ID: 10-013-20180724

The council should review land sale and planning application evidence to form appropriate benchmark land values, adjusted to exclude negative impact of abnormals, for mid/high density apartment developments. Legal fees The council has assumed £600 across all appraisals. Whilst potentially appropriate for lower value houses and apartments, for mid/high and above values an average of £750 per unit is more appropriate (Peel Holdings).

The Revised Draft Local Plan viability assessment has taken a different approach to legal fees from that previously set out. It assumes that legal fees are 0.75% of site value, with this being an industry standard, and reflective of viability assessments submitted with planning applications in Salford,

Development costs

General comment The under-estimation of costs will have profound implications upon the credibility of the viability report, which could suggest many of the policy requirements within other value areas to be unjustified. Such costs are either below or at the lower end of those recommended by the Local Housing Delivery Group report chaired by John Harmon (Home Builders Federation).

The costs are reflective of costs seen in Salford within viability assessments submitted with planning applications.

Build costs For high density apartments the council has used BCIS average prices for 6+ storey apartments of £1,415per sqm. This is insufficient with Peel’s experience highlighting actual costs of £1,722-£1,991 per sqm dependent on height, location and specification (Peel Holdings). Further detail should be provided as to the assumed scale (storeys) of the high density apartment typology, to show construction costs area based on an appropriate range of developments including schemes well in excess of 6 storeys (Peel Holdings). Average BCIS costings increased by 13.29% from February 6 2016 (i.e. the data used by the council) to 20 December 2016. This is a

The planning practice guidance on viability states that a cost of development is build costs and suggests that such costs should be based on appropriate data, for example that of the Building Cost Information Service (BCIS).4 Consideration was given to using build costs per square metre of the gross internal floorspace as set out by BCIS (as had been used in the assessment for the draft plan). However, Urban Vision Property Services have advised that the costs are not now representative of the actual build costs that they are seeing on schemes within Salford, including those that have been verified by the district valuer. Having regard to this, a build cost of £1,615 per sqm has been adopted for high density apartments (Urban Vision have advised that

4 Para 012. Reference ID: 10-012-20180724

considerable increase and so the appraisals should be re-run on the basis of up to date BCIS data (Peel Holdings). Build costs are inflated at paragraph 3.4of the assessment by 5% to introduce a “buffer” to ensure the appraisals do not over-estimate viability. This is minimal equating to only £50sqm, especially considering the value areas are based on a £100-£200sqm rounding. Further reasoning should be provided to justify the level of viability buffer adopted (Peel Holdings).

this reflects schemes of up to 18 storeys in height). Where schemes in excess of 18 storeys in height are coming forward with higher build costs then this can be considered as part of the planning application process. For houses a build rate of £1,033 per sqm has been applied for all houses rather than having a different costs for each type of house reflecting that this is a strategic viability assessment. For mid density apartments a rate of £1,065 per sqm has been applied. The previous version of the planning guidance on viability stated that plan makers should not plan to the margins of viability, and should allow for a buffer to respond to changing markets and to avoid the need for frequent plan updating. There is no reference in the current version of the guidance on viability with regards to applying a buffer, and so on this basis the city council has not applied one.

Abnormals and demolition Concern that there is no consideration of abnormal costs or the costs of demolition. This is despite the high reliance upon previously developed land (Home Builders Federation).

Clearly some sites, particularly those of a brownfield nature, will have an element of abnormal costs. However the strategic area-wide nature of the local plan viability assessment is not designed to test the viability of specific sites; it cannot seek to encompass all the potential differences in individual site circumstances / abnormals that affect viability. Given this, the assessment makes a nil allowance for abnormals, recognising that any site specific issues should result in a reduced existing use value, subject to the proper exercise of due diligence by the site purchaser. This is line with the planning practice guidance on viability which states that abnormal costs should be taken into account when defining benchmark land value.5

Accessible and adaptable homes Since the costs of meeting accessible and adaptable homes were considered by E C Harris in September 2014 for DCLG, BCIS average prices within Greater Manchester have risen 29%. The

The provenance of the E C Harris figures has not been re-examined which is beyond the scope of this assessment. There is no obvious reason to question their continued soundness and the council are not aware of any changes in practice that will have materially changed the cost basis of the figures (either higher or lower).


costs used by the council should be increased to reflect current day costings (Peel Holdings). Marketing and sales fees Concern that only 3% of GVA is allowed for marketing costs (Home Builders Federation).

Based on other schemes coming forward in the city, this is considered to be appropriate and has been carried forward into the Revised Draft Local Plan viability assessment.

Building design fees The council has assumed this as 8% of build costs – the appraisals show that “fees and certification” are calculated at 8% of the base build costs. In reality fees will be incurred in respect of other costs such as plot specific external works, M4(2) and accessible and adaptable costs, and infrastructure. Professional fees should be recalculated to fully reflect the costs incurred by housing developers, not just costs relating to base build costs (Peel Holdings).

For the purposes of this strategic viability assessment, and as commonly seen elsewhere, it is only considered appropriate to apply professional fees to build costs. Urban Vision Property Services advised that a figure of 5% of build costs for all professional fees should be applied given that this figure has been agreed with volume housebuilders as being appropriate on schemes within Salford where a viability assessment has been submitted in support of a planning application. This 5% figure has been used in the Revised Draft Local Plan viability assessment.

Building contingencies The contingency amounts are insufficient; the allowance should apply to all costs of construction (Peel Holdings).

Building contingencies of 3% of build costs have been allowed for. Calculating contingencies in this way is considered to be industry standard and reflects other developments in Salford (and as agreed through planning application viability assessments) and the North West. Urban Vision Property Services have advised that building contingencies for regional or national volume house builders usually remain relatively stable across different developments as they have in-house design teams who design standard house types which are used across multiple sites. Furthermore they will often use the same contractors who become familiar with the house types and which leads to greater efficiencies.

Developer profit

The level of profit adopted is at the lower end of the scale and not appropriate in the case of large scale urban extensions. This issue is

The planning practice guidance on viability6 states that “For the purpose of plan making an assumption of 15-20% of gross

6 Paragraph 018. Reference ID: 10-018-20180724

raised at paragraph 3.3.2 of the 2012 RICS guidance on Financial Viability in Planning and page 31 of the Local Housing Delivery Group report (Persimmon Homes). Concern that the assumed 17.5% developer profit is at the lower end of the scale (Home Builders Federation). The council has applied a developer profit of 17.5% of gross development value. It is widely accepted and supported by Planning Inspectorate appeal decisions that a profit rate of 20% is appropriate for the majority of market housing sites in current market conditions. The proposed profit level will divert investment to other areas where a greater return is regarded as reasonable (Peel Holdings). The appraisals are modelled on the basis of off-site affordable housing delivery, with 100% market housing on site. The profit level adopted is insufficient and artificially inflates viability (Peel Holdings).

development value (GDV) may be considered a suitable return to developers in order to establish the viability of plan policies. Plan makers may choose to apply alternative figures where there is evidence to support this according to the type, scale and risk profile of planned development”. Having regard to the planning practice guidance, and on the basis of recent viability evidence submitted to the city council, a developer profit of 18% of gross development value is considered to be an appropriate benchmark in current market conditions. A lower percentage developer profit will be appropriate for specific types of scheme (e.g. a Private Rented Sector scheme, or a scheme where units are to be sold to a Registered Provider). However the 18% figure has been applied across all tenures, and so this provides a form of a buffer. It is also recognised that a higher or lower percentage developer profit may be necessary depending on the risk of the schemes. It is however considered that 18% represents an appropriate benchmark in current market conditions and for the purposes of this area wide viability assessment. The appraisals are not modelled on the basis of 100% market housing on site (i.e. affordable dwellings off-site). The approach taken is to calculate the surplus / deficit of a 100% market scheme, apply non affordable housing planning obligations to the surplus / deficit, and then work out how much discount a developer would have to provide in order for a registered provider to acquire units on the site (at the differing proportions of affordable housing assessed).

Impact of non-affordable housing planning obligation requirements The evidence base for the assessment of non-affordable housing planning obligation requirements should be clearly stated and evidenced (Peel Holdings).

Section 6 of the Revised Draft plan viability assessment sets out in full how the non-affordable housing planning obligations have been calculated.

Affordable housing – discounts off open market value required

The council has assumed that the discount off open market value for RPs to acquire units is 55% for social rent, 45% for affordable rent and 25% for intermediate dwellings. Peel has held direct discussions with RPs, including those currently active in Salford, and at the present time understands offers will be made at discounts equating to 70% for social rent, 60-80% for affordable rented and 25-40% for intermediate (Peel Holdings). Evidence should be provided to support the proposed discounts, with adjustments made within the appraisals in line with evidence which directs that greater discounts should be adopted (Peel Holdings).

The discount off open market value will inevitably differ on a scheme by scheme basis, but acknowledging the recent delivery of affordable housing in the city and information supplied by registered providers active in the Salford, an appropriate discount off open market value is considered to be 60% for social rented, 50% for affordable rented and 40% for shared ownership dwellings. This has been factored into the Revised Draft Local Plan viability assessment. Explicit evidence has not been provided to support these discounts by the city council given that they are commercially sensitive, and have been provided to the city council on a confidential basis in order to inform the development of policy.

Margins of viability

The requirements sought by the policy present an inappropriate starting point. In accordance with the findings of the Local Housing Delivery Group, "Given the clear emphasis on deliverability within the NPPF, Local Plan policies should not be predicated on the assumption that the development upon which the plan relies will come forward at the ‘margins of viability’." (p16) (Persimmon Homes). It is notable that in many of the areas deemed viable, this in many cases is marginal. This is not considered to provide the relevant viability buffer inferred by the PPG (ID 10-008) (Home Builders Federation, Persimmon Homes).

The previous version of the planning guidance on viability stated that plan makers should not plan to the margins of viability, and should allow for a buffer to respond to changing markets and to avoid the need for frequent plan updating. There is no reference in the current version of the guidance on viability with regards to applying a buffer and so on this basis the city council has not applied one.

Proportion of affordable housing required

High density apartments Peel Media Management Limited commented that the findings of the viability assessment have not been accurately reflected in the policy, specifically in relation to the requirement for 10% affordable housing in high density developments. They made the following points relating to this:

The city council has amended the affordable housing requirements in the Revised Draft Local Plan having regard to the updated viability assessment, and a policy expectation that all major developments provide a minimum of at least 20% affordable housing. The viability assessment is the starting point rather than the only determinant in setting affordable housing requirements.

At the preferred tenure mix (37.5% social rent, 37.5% affordable

rent and 25% intermediate) affordable housing is not viable with even a 5% requirement.

The tenure mix has been changed to 100% intermediate; a 5% requirement would be viable but 10% would not be

The policy requirement in the plan is for 10% affordable housing and is contrary to the evidence.

Concerns about altering tenure mix – no evidence that intermediate housing will meet identified needs and so assessment may not be robust.

Peel Holdings fully supported the above comments from Peel Media Management Limited and further commented as follows: Table 26 shows that high density apartments in the premium

value area would produce a deficit of £173,161 with a 10% requirement comprised of 100% intermediate dwellings, and that this deficit could be accommodated by “slight adjustments to some of the assumptions underpinning the assessments”.

The Draft Local Plan requires that all high density apartment development in Salford should provide 10% intermediate housing. This is not supported by the evidence base, with high density apartments shown to be unviable in all areas except premium value.

Premium value areas or land currently designated as Green Belt Green Belt status is a policy designation which is not relevant to development viability. There is insufficient evidence that 40% affordable provision on land currently designated as Green Belt is realistic and deliverable (Persimmon Homes). Peel Holdings commented that the adoption of a ‘blanket assumption’ that all Green Belt land is premium value is inappropriate. Peel acknowledge and appreciate greenfield sites are

The approach to Green Belt and the value areas has been reconsidered in the Revised Draft Local Plan viability assessment. The Revised Draft Greater Manchester Spatial Framework allocates three sites that are currently within Salford’s Green Belt for new housing. There is no comparable sales values data available for these sites and so therefore a judgement needed to be made as to what value area they are likely to correspond to, for the purposes of the viability assessment. The assessment notes that the Green Belt

likely to be expected to the delivery of their own infrastructure – however it is clear from the value areas map that only small areas of Green Belt are adjoined by medium/high, high or premium areas, with the vast majority adjoined by mid value areas. It is difficult to understand how all areas of Green Belt can be assessed as premium when no evidence and little reasoning is provided to support this. Given this, the base assumption for Green Belt land should be that it falls within the mid value category Anonymous Salford Landowners and Consortium of Landowners – Irlam and Cadishead commented that the approach of including Green Belt sites with premium sites is not reasonable with different areas of Green Belt falling into different residential value areas. Furthermore: H3/4 Western Cadishead and Irlam allocation is located adjacent

to a designated mid-value area, and is a significant distance from any part of Salford considered to be mid/high, high or premium.

On the basis of the proposed policy site H3/4 would be required to provide affordable housing at 40 percent whilst, in the area immediately adjacent to the south and east, a requirement for 10 percent would be applied.

No evidence to support the supposition that Green Belt sites have the same ability to support the same level of affordable housing as premium areas, and no attempt at any form of analysis to suggest that this is correct.

The Green Belt sites proposed for allocation are not one homogenous site and are not even all broadly located in the same area.

The proposed Green Belt sites make a significant contribution to the plan with site H3/4 particularly critical to its delivery, with an allocation of approximately 2,250 dwellings. It is vital that the authority has an understanding of the deliverability of Green Belt sites to ensure that the plan can be delivered in the setting of the proposed affordable housing requirement.

allocations are considered to fall under the sales value area as set out below: East of Boothstown – Premium value area: the dwellings that will

come forward on this site will be to an exceptional quality, targeting the top end of the housing market with the intention of attracting highly skilled professionals. On this basis the sales value of dwellings on the site are going to be reflective of the premium values.

Hazelhurst Farm– High Value area: the sales values for these two sites are likely to be the same as the areas that they are adjacent to.

North of Irlam Train Station – High value area: given the scale of development on this site, it is likely the development will create its own market which will have higher sales values than the areas that it adjoins.

Policy H7 (affordable housing) of the Revised Draft Local Plan identifies that Green Belt is not covered by the value areas, as new housing development within the Green Belt that is in excess of the thresholds in this policy will by definition be inappropriate. If exceptional circumstances exist to justify such development in the Green Belt, then the proportion of dwellings that are affordable must be maximised

High value areas The 40% affordable housing sought on lower density schemes would produce a surplus of just £23,907, compared with £548,920 if 35% were to be sought. Even with no account taken of remediation of abnormal infrastructure, the proposed affordable provision would clearly cause development to be at the margins of viability (Persimmon Homes).


Mid/high value areas 25% requirement for houses scheme; however there is only a surplus of £10,704 with 25% affordable housing to being sought compared with £459,969 if 20% were to be sought. Even with no account taken of remediation of abnormal infrastructure, the proposed affordable provision would clearly cause development to be at the margins of viability (Persimmon Homes). The 25% requirement for houses and 10% for mid density apartments is different from the requirement of 20% for houses and 10% for mid density apartments required by the 2015 Planning Obligations SPD. The Local Plan policy should be ameded to reflect the Obliagtions SPD (United Utilities Property Services).


Mid value areas The schedule of residential values (Annex A) refers to Cadishead as being a mid value area. Table 34 of the main report identifies that in this value area the evidence shows that mid density and high density apartment schemes cannot support affordable housing; policy H7 conflicts with this as it requires 10% affordable housing for mid density apartment schemes. Policy should be amended to reflect a 0% requirement (Arnold Laver). Within this value area policy compliant developments would be unviable - the justification for the affordable housing policy requirement is therefore unclear (Home Builders Federation).


Low/mid and low value areas Within these value areas policy compliant developments would be unviable - the justification for the affordable housing policy requirement is therefore unclear (Home Builders Federation). The 10% affordable housing requirement for mid density apartments are not supported by the evidence base, and are unviable and undeliverable.


ANNEX G – Response to Revised Draft Local Plan Representations EVIDENCE BASE: Assessment of residential viability (ARV) (January 2019) TOTAL NUMBER OF REPRESENTATIONS: 2

Issues raised in the representations to the Revised Draft Local Plan assessment of residential viability

How is this being addressed

Overall approach

Certain fundamental appraisal assumptions adopted within the ARV are incorrect, un-evidenced, or inadequately evidenced. The impact of this is that the results of the ARV overstate the financial viability of development site typologies assessed (and hence overstate the ability of development to meet the draft policies within the RDSLP). This is contrary to paragraphs 31 and 34 of the NPPF. The housing policies of the RDSLP (Policy H5 Size of Dwellings; Policy H6 Housing Density; and Policy H7 Affordable Housing) have not been effectively assessed in accordance with the NPPF and the Government’s PPGV. The policies cannot therefore be considered justified or sound. This poses a risk to the deliverability of the RDSLP. (The Peel Group)

The January 2019 assessment of residential viability (ARV) has been updated in support of the SLP: DMP (published January 2020). This has included reviewing assumptions such as costs, and also the typologies used in the assessment. The January 2020 ARV does not overstate development viability and does not result in there being a risk to the deliverability of the SLP: DMP.

Mix of dwellings (type and number of bedrooms)

The information that has informed the scheme density and typology mixes should be provided for review (The Peel Group).

The city council has provided the information that has informed the scheme typologies within the main ARV report and associated annexes.

Size of dwellings

The adoption of the nationally described space standards (NDSS) generates family housing net coverage (excluding garages) of 15,765ft2 per developable acre (3,619m2 per hectare) for premium and high value areas (35 dph) and up to 19,129ft² per net developable acre (4,391m2 per hectare) for low value areas (50 dph).

The 2020 ARV continues to apply the NDSS in accordance with policy H2 of the SLP: DMP. In accordance with policy H3 of the SLP: DMP a minimum density of 35 dwellings per hectare has been applied within the typologies. This is in order to ensure that developments make efficient use of land, in accordance with policy

In reality, development at the proposed levels will either not be physically possible due to design/layout constraints and building/highways regulations, or the demand (and achievable values) for completed units will be artificially supressed and financially unsustainable due to over-development. The approach taken is not justified in line with market expectations or physical constraints of development. Analysis of development layouts for housing schemes across Greater Manchester, and ongoing engagement with regional and national developers, it is both Turley’s, and Peel’s experience that developers are unlikely to exceed 14,000-14,500ft2 per net developable acre (3,214 – 3,329m2 per hectare) in premium and high value areas, and 17,500ft2per net developable acre (4,017m2 per hectare) in low value areas. There is a significant ‘disconnect’ between the ‘theoretical’ evidence base within the ARV and commercial and practical reality. It appears that there has been no commercial ‘sense check’ on the deliverability of arising coverage levels and density has been applied. Peel would be willing to provide further information to SCC and Urban Vision to evidence this issue. The requirement to meet the floor areas as defined in the NDSS will necessitate a reduction in unit per hectare development density and floor area coverage on the majority of major development sites to ensure that it is physically possible to deliver the larger than average units and to meet market expectations. Turley has calculated that, on the basis of a pro-rata reduction (from the ARV assumptions) in respect of proposed unit mix and sizing, a sound approach to development density when adopting NDSS unit sizing would be to adopt the approach set out below:

EF1 of the SLP: DMP, and section 11 of the NPPF (and in particular paragraph 122). The typologies have been updated in the 2020 ARV, including a reconsideration of density and coverage. Updated assumptions around the mix of dwellings within each typology have also been adopted. This is having regard to a sample of schemes that have recently been completed in the city or have extant planning permission. The provision of information referred to within the representation (i.e. Peel providing evidence to sense check coverage levels and density) was requested by the city council but was not provided. Having regard to the unit mix, sizing and density used by the city council in the 2020 ARV (see main report and annexes for further details), the following table sets out net coverage levels for the houses typology (excluding garages). Value area Dwellings

per hectare Sqm per hectare

Premium 65 6,414 High and mid/high 35 3,379 Mid 40 3,713 Low/mid and low 45 4,005

The premium value area density and coverage reflect the fact that this value area is comprised of City Centre Salford and Salford Quays, where houses will come forward in the form of high density townhouses (as shown in the Timekeepers Square and Carpino Place developments) rather than on a more traditional scheme. The coverage for the other value areas is broadly consistent with the approach set out within the representations submitted by The Peel Group. On this basis the proposed approach would not lead to over development.

Value area Dwellings per hectare

Sqm per hectare

Sqm per acre

Premium and high 32 3,301 14,380 Mid/high 35 3,463 15,085 Mid 40 3,846 16,754 Low/mid and low 45 3,957 17,236

Peel requests a reduction to the tested development densities for the various value areas, in order to ensure that the modelled floor area delivery does not exceed both physical development limitations and market expectations. RDSLP Policy H6 Housing Density requires a minimum net residential density of 35 dwellings per hectare. Peel requests that all proposed development densities within the RDSLP are reviewed to ensure that the impact of providing units in line with NDSS requirements has been appropriately addressed, with reduced densities required to ensure that RDSLP policy requirements do not lead to over-development, or undeliverable sites. (The Peel Group)

Apartment car parking

No details are provided in the ARV in respect of parking provision for the apartment schemes. It can be inferred from the RDLPR that apartment car parking costs are included in the infrastructure/external cost allowances. This is inappropriate, as developers will regard car parking costs separately from infrastructure/external costs. Furthermore, allowances for external works and infrastructure costs have been incorporated into the build cost rate, as advised by Urban Vision. In order to be regarded as robust, the external works/infrastructure costs must be identified separately from the overall build costs. Without the provision of transparent information there remains a risk

The 2020 ARV provides build cost figures for apartments – these costs are ‘all-in’ and include infrastructure and external costs such as car parking. The build costs used in the assessment are not considered to be an under-estimate (and have been increased since the 2019 ARV). The city council has made no allowance within its assessment for income from the sale of car parking spaces within apartment schemes. In high density apartments schemes coming forward in the city, car parking spaces are sold separately to the actual apartments themselves, at around £10,000 to £15,000 per space. This is an additional income that is not factored into the viability assessment.

that the apartment scheme build costs have been underestimated. In addition, costs of parking provision must be included within the assessment of apartment development viability. (The Peel Group) Garages

At ARV paragraph 4.9, it is stated that a single garage of 14m² is assumed for all detached dwellings in the family houses scheme typology. ARV paragraph 4.17 indicates that 14 sq m was added to the EPC floorspace data for all detached dwellings within the comparable analysis attached at ARV Annex D. As a result, the £ per sq m values for detached units are reduced when compared to the £ per sq m values produced by the EPC floor areas. This is regarded as unusual methodology, but an acceptable basis for Local Plan viability testing purposes. However, from sample testing, the approach has not been consistently adopted within the data presented at Annex D. For example, the detached £ per sq m values for North Walkden and North Swinton are calculated on the EPC floor areas, rather than the total floorspace (inclusive of garage). Therefore, the values shown for these locations are higher than appropriate. Upon further testing by SCC it may be found that other areas are incorrectly assessed. It is important that all comparable information is assessed on a robust and consistent basis. All comparable data must be checked by SCC, and value areas reassessed, as necessary. (The Peel Group)

The city council has carried forward the assumption in the 2020 ARV with regards to all detached houses having a garage of 14 sqm. In relation to adding 14 sqm of floorspace to the EPC floorspace data at Annex D for all detached dwellings (to allow for a garage), this assumption has not been carried forward in the 2020 ARV. As noted by the respondent, the assumption results in the £ per sqm values reducing when compared to the £ per sqm values produced by the EPC floor areas. It is agreed therefore that this assumption is unusual, and on this basis is inappropriate for inclusion within the updated 2020 ARV.

Net to gross adjustment

ARV Paragraph 4.13 proposes the gross to net area reduction for the mid-density apartment typology as being 15%, and 17.5% for high density apartments. Peel regards both reductions as unduly low when

The gross to net areas reductions for the mid-density and high density apartment typologies have been retained as 15% and 17.5% respectively within the 2020 ARV, having regard to schemes coming

cross-referenced against developments delivered in the Salford market. Peel can provide local market evidence in respect of two recent schemes in Salford, one of which was subject to an 18.5% reduction from gross to net area, and the other was subject to a 19% reduction. Peel regards both schemes as extremely efficient, with no site specific factors to impact on their design. Turley has recent experience of a further scheme in Salford where the gross to net reduction was 19.5%. To ensure that viability testing is not tested at the limit of delivery expectations, a 20% reduction from gross to net area is regarded as an appropriate average rate for adoption within a mid or high density scenario testing exercise for local plan viability purposes. This approach will avoid placing such scheme typologies at the margins of viability. A low assessment of gross internal area, as presently applied within the ARV will underestimate construction costs and will overstate development scheme viability. No evidence has been provided in the ARV or the RDLPR to support the adopted assumption. Relevant local market evidence must be provided by SCC to support the adopted assumption, and Peel would welcome the opportunity to provide SCC with the local market evidence referenced upon request. (The Peel Group)

forward in the city (and within viability assessments submitted to Urban Vision at the planning application stage). It is important to note that the city council’s high density apartment typology relates to dwellings for sale. Build to rent schemes which would typically have a higher gross to net area reduction, due to an increased level of shared spaces such as cinema rooms, gyms etc. are not considered within the ARV. The rationale for this approach is set out within the main ARV report. The respondent refers to local market evidence that could be provided to the city council by Peel with regards to local market evidence indicating that there is a need for high gross to net reduction. This information was requested by the city council but was not provided.

Residential sales values

ARV Paragraph 4.16 confirms that ‘actual’ sales data was obtained rather than asking prices (formerly the erroneous approach utilised in the 2016 ARV) to inform residential sales values and that this information has been cross-referenced with floor space data contained within Energy Performance Certificates (EPC). These sources of data are regarded as appropriate for obtaining evidence.

The 2020 ARV has continued to use land registry price paid data and cross references this with floorspace data contained within Energy Performance Certificates. As explained in section 4 of the main 2020 ARV report, data has been gathered on sales between April 2018 and August 2019. A minimum of 16 sales were identified for each of the 32 value areas,

A number of the value areas are assessed with only 10 comparable sales transactions. This is regarded as a minimal representation of achieved values, with a danger that averages will be skewed by over-representation of particular unit types or a particular development scheme in a low sample size. It is noted that the most recent sales evidence is dated from March 2018, which is now outdated (by twelve months). It is essential that the comparable evidence is updated to utilise available transaction data drawn from Land Registry that provides data on transactions that have occurred over the last twelve months in order to increase the sample size from which value area conclusions are drawn. (The Peel Group)

with a total 1,109 sales assessed as a whole. The sample size has increased from the 725 sales that were assessed in the Revised Draft ARV. Those areas where there is most development activity have a higher sample size, reflecting the fact that there are more sales within these areas. The approach undertaken by the city council is considered to be robust and proportionate.

Concerns regarding the approach to residential sales values, as these only considered data derived from a short period of just 15 months from the start of 2017 to the end of March 2018. No justification has been provided as to why such a short period has been relied upon. Relying upon such a short period raises questions recording the suitability and reliability of the data, as is significantly limits the sample size and does not account for any trends or dips/spikes in the market. It is considered that a greater time period should be used to inform sales value calculations. (Bredale Properties Ltd)

For the 2020 ARV a minimum of 16 sales were identified for each of the 32 value areas, with a total 1,109 sales assessed as a whole. These properties were sold between April 2018 and August 2019. Basing sales values on a longer period is not considered to be appropriate as it would not reflect up to date sales values. The approach undertaken by the city council is considered to be robust and proportionate.

Ground rents

Ground rents are discussed at ARV paragraphs 4.25-4.26 and are now only applied to apartments. The Government has confirmed within “Tackling unfair practices in the leasehold market: Summary of consultation responses and Government response” that it will:

The 2020 ARV continues to identify a ground rent for the apartment typologies. This reflects the fact that legislation has not yet been enacted to prevent ground rent being charged at levels above a peppercorn zero financial value. Apartment schemes continue to come forward with ground rents applied to them, and are accepted as being appropriate by the city council through consideration of viability assessments submitted within planning applications.

“…introduce legislation so that, in the future, ground rents on newly established leases of houses and flats are set at a peppercorn (zero financial value)” In line with proposed Government legislation, Peel would expect to see ground rents removed from the apartment appraisals – to prevent unduly increasing capital value and therefore leading to the results as presently published overstating development viability. (The Peel Group) Build period and sales rate

Paragraph 57 of the NPPF confirms that transparency in the preparation of all viability assessments is essential. This is confirmed in paragraph 10 of the PPG relating to viability. The ARV is inconsistent with this as it provides insufficient details of the development programme applied for each site typology and does not provide copies of appraisal cashflows or supporting explanation of the timing of various costs and revenues, which will impact on financial viability. Build rates ARV Table 12 provides only headline development timings. This is insufficient to comprise robust evidence. The sale of the first family housing unit is programmed to occur after only four months of the construction period, which does not reflect commercial reality. The standard development assumption, which reflects developer delivery rates, is six months construction prior to the first practical completion and sale in month seven. A shorter lead-in period prior to first disposal will understate finance costs (accrued on land acquisition and construction works) and will overstate development viability. Evidence utilised within the ARV to underpin the RDLPR must be transparently presented and ‘available’ in accordance with the NPPF and PPGV.

The sales and build rates reflect those being seen in the city, including assumptions within viability assessment being considered by the city council. They reflect reality. Therefore no change in the assumptions have been made between the 2019 and 2020 ARV. The assumptions used by the city council are set out in full within the main report. The city council has used the HCA Development Appraisal Tool (DAT) to run the appraisals. As with the 2019 ARV, the 2020 ARV includes summary copies of the appraisals that underpin the assessment. Full copies of the appraisals including full cashflow calculations can be made available (as Microsoft Excel files) on request.

Sales rate Mid and high density apartments are assumed to be 90% reserved off-plan with pre-sales completed upon practical completion of construction. The remaining 10% are modelled to sell within 3 months after construction end. Peel regards the proposed sales rates as very aggressive considering that mid density apartments are tested in all value areas and high density apartments are tested in all but low/mid and low value areas. Peel would not expect to see off-plan reservations exceeding 50% of total units prior to practical completion. Utilisation of a higher rate of off-plan reservations is unjustified (contrary to NPPF paragraph 35b) and does not reflect either local plan viability assessments or site-specific viability assessment conducted across Greater Manchester. The source of the evidence for the apartment sales rate is not set out in the ARV. No evidence is provided to support the assumption. Given that this aggressive assumption will accelerate the introduction of revenue into each development scheme, and will commensurately understate finance costs (accrued on land acquisition and construction works as a result), it will result in an overstatement of development viability within the ARV. If SCC is to continue to seek to utilise this rate of sale, evidence utilised within the ARV to underpin the RDLPR must be transparently presented and ‘available’ in accordance with the NPPF and PPG. Appraisal cashflows Given appraisal cashflows are not provided in the ARV, this does not provide stakeholders with the ability to review and appropriately comment upon the cashflow inputs and timing assumptions used within the ARV appraisals. This prejudices consultees’ ability to properly engage with the contents of the Plan and fails to comply with NPPF paragraph 16c). The information required for disclosure for each site typology includes:

Pre-development periods Enabling and servicing infrastructure timing Construction (months) prior to first sale Confirmation of total unit sales per annum per outlet and volume

of outlets assumed Affordable unit disposal programme Timing of payment of S106 planning obligations The assumptions made directly influence the accruing of development finance (interest) within each of the site typology appraisals, and will therefore have a direct impact on the financial viability of all site typologies tested, it is essential that this evidence is presented transparently for stakeholder review and comment. It is not possible for industry stakeholders to ascertain the robustness of the methodology applied without full disclosure. It is essential that evidence is provided by SCC to support the adopted build and sales period assumptions, with re-modelling required to align with market expectations. Furthermore, copies of the appraisal cashflows are requested for transparency in accordance with the NPPF and PPGV. The current ARV assumptions are not supported by reference to any evidence and are regarded as over optimistic, inflating viability. (The Peel Group) Benchmark land value

Paragraph 14 of the PPG states explicitly that Benchmark Land Values (BLVs) should, “…be informed by market evidence including current uses, costs and values wherever possible”. Paragraph 16 subsequently requires plan makers to: “…establish a reasonable premium to the landowner for the purpose of assessing the viability of their plan. This will be an iterative process

The approach to BLV is set out in paragraphs 4.21 to 4.35 of the 2020 ARV. The values have not been changed since the 2019 ARV. Since the 2019 ARV was undertaken, Three Dragons have been preparing a strategic viability assessment covering Greater Manchester in support of the GMSF. Consideration has been given to appropriate land values as part of this process, including a developer workshop and other sources. The BLVs used by the city

informed by professional judgement and must be based upon the best available evidence informed by cross sector collaboration. For any viability assessment data sources to inform the establishment the landowner premium should include market evidence…” and that BLVs must reflect the “…reasonable expectations of local landowners”. ARV Tables 6 and 7 under Paragraph 4.38 set out the threshold land values (i.e. BLV), calculated on a per hectare basis utilising what is stated to be the Existing Use Value Plus (EUV+) approach. Paragraph 4.35 states that the appropriate benchmark land values for the purposes of the ARV have been recommended by Urban Vision, based upon an EUV+ approach with the existing use assumed to be industrial/employment land – which is applied to all typologies within the assessment. ARV paragraph 4.36 states: “Although not all land that will come forward for residential development will be on employment land it is considered reasonable to apply the employment values to all of the typologies in this assessment. Whilst other land uses may have a different EUV and could command a higher/lower value, for the purposes of the high level assessment it is deemed proportionate to apply this figure.” The industrial/employment BLV applied within the ARV vary from £370,000 per hectare in low value areas to £595,000 per hectare in premium value areas respectively. No supporting explanation or local market evidence is provided within the ARV to justify the variable industrial/employment BLV adopted. The premiums to incentivise landowners to sell their land are set at 20% (above EUV) for family house and mid-density apartments, and 30% for high density apartments. The corresponding maximum EUV+ values are £714,000 per hectare and £773,500 per hectare respectively in premium value areas, as an example.

council in its ARV are broadly in line with the upper and lower BLVs for brownfield industrial sites in the emerging Three Dragons et al viability work.

No market evidence is provided within the ARV to support the EUVs applied and landowner premiums set. The use of arbitrary uplifts (premiums) should regarded as inappropriate (see the Judgement of the High Court in the Parkhurst Road case and the critique of the use of an “arbitrary number and…method [that] does not reflect the workings of the market”. Due to a lack of evidential support, Peel disagrees with the broad brush approach applied to setting benchmark land values for apartment schemes within the ARV. It is regarded as more appropriate to undertake a ‘sense check’ against the value per unit generated for apartment site testing owing to their increased development density. The development of apartment schemes produces a much higher density of development in comparison to family housing schemes and, consequently, a landowner will expect any mid / high density apartment development to have the potential to generate land values well in excess of those which could be generated from traditional low-rise housing schemes. Without this level of return there would be no incentive to deliver higher-rise forms of development. From research undertaken by Turley, and discussions with apartment developers, our understanding of the Salford and Trafford/City Centre market indicates that land transaction values achieved on high density city centre apartment development sites can equate to circa £15,000 - £20,000 per plot. The benchmarks applied in the ARV will fall very significantly below this when converted from a £/ha rate. Overall, Peel considers that the benchmark land values applied within the ARV fail to reflect the reasonable expectations of local landowners and could stifle development if applied in practice. It is essential that reference is made to transactional evidence by the ARV in setting BLVs, in line with PPGV, which states at Paragraph

014 that, in addition to being based on existing use value, the BLV should: “…be informed by market evidence including current uses, costs and values wherever possible. Where recent market evidence is used to inform assessment of benchmark land value this evidence should be based on developments which are compliant with policies, including for affordable housing. Where this evidence is not available plan makers and applicants should identify and evidence any adjustments to reflect the cost of policy compliance. This is so that historic benchmark land values of non-policy compliant developments are not used to inflate values over time.” SCC has not followed the methodology set out in PPGV in preparing the ARV in this respect. It is essential that transactional evidence and detailed reasoning is made available to support the BLV adopted for the assessment of scheme viability within the ARV, in line with PPGV. SCC should review land sale and planning application / permission evidence in order to form appropriate benchmark land values for green field and brownfield land, re-weighted for policy compliance. They should also engage with landowners, promoters and developers to rectify the concerns raised by effectively establishing and seeking to agree appropriately evidenced BLVs, which will be sufficient to incentivise local market delivery, prior to the Examination of the RDSLP. PPGV is clear on the importance of this process at paragraph 13. (The Peel Group) The approach to calculating land value is unjustified. As set out in paragraph 4.35/4.36, the viability appraisal calculates benchmark land value based upon industrial land value. However, the guidance within the MHCLG confirms that whilst values for industrial land can be used to proxy alternative use value for developments on brownfield land, this assumes that such sites are restricted to

It is accepted that there will be instances where land will come forward for residential development on land that has an existing land value / use that is not industry.

industrial/warehouse uses. Clearly in the case of Salford, and Salford Quays, much of the land that will come forward is not restricted to such a use and therefore it is considered that the benchmark land value calculated is likely to be too low. (Bredale Properties Ltd)

However, although not all land that will come forward for residential development will be on employment land it is considered reasonable to apply the employment values to all of the typologies in this assessment. Whilst other land uses may have a different EUV and could command a higher/lower value, for the purposes of the high level assessment it is deemed proportionate to apply this figure. With regard to land values at Salford Quays and other areas, much of the land that will come forward for development will have industrial value given current use (for example land around Broadway at the Quays, the Ordsall Lane Corridor, Greengate etc).

Marketing, sales and legal fees

Legal fees are included within ARV Table 10 and combined within the ‘Marketing, Sales and Legal Fees’ at 3% of the market housing value. In line with standard practice in viability assessments to inform local plan policies, as well as within site-specific viability assessments, an average rate of £750 per unit as is regarded as appropriate for sales legal fees on top of a 3% allowance for marketing and sales costs. (The Peel Group)

The addition of an average of £750 for sales legal fees on top of a 3% allowance for marketing and sales costs is not considered to be appropriate. The approach taken by the city council is considered to be a standard one that has been accepted in many area-wide assessments and accepted at recent plan and CIL examinations.

Build costs

ARV paragraphs 4.41 and 4.42 confirm that build costs have been informed by Urban Vision, who advised that the use of RICS BCIS cost data was not representative of the actual build costs realised on schemes within Salford. This statement does not accord with provisions within PPGV, which states at paragraph 12 that RICS BCIS provides “appropriate data”. No justification is provided by SCC or Urban Vision as to why RICS BCIS data does not provide “appropriate data” for the purpose of the ARV. This is a significant gap in the evidence base which must be addressed before the plan proceeds. The proposes construction cost rates that are inclusive of infrastructure/externals costs, are as follows:

The issue of build costs have been fully reconsidered as part of the 2020 ARV. Having regard to schemes coming forward in the city, and also consideration of viability assessments submitted with planning application, the 2020 ARV uses the following build costs that are inclusive of infrastructure and external costs. £1,130 per sqm for houses £1,292 per sqm for mid density apartments (3 to 5 storeys) £1,884 per sqm for high density apartments (6-15 storeys) It can be seen therefore that build costs from the 2019 ARV have been increased by 9.4%, 21.3% and 16.7% for the houses, mid

£1,033 per sq m for houses; £1,065 per sq m for mid-density apartments (3-5 storeys) £1,615 per sq m for high density apartments (6+ storeys) In comparison to BCIS data and both Peel and Turley’s market knowledge gained through detailed discussions and receipt of confidential information from housing and apartment developers, Peel regards SCC’s adopted costs as falling significantly below the levels required in order to reflect current costs in the development industry when applied within local plan viability assessment. The construction cost information utilised by is effectively provided on a ‘black box’ basis, offering no transparency and no evidential support. In contrast, RICS BCIS data is published (albeit subject to subscription) and is widely accepted for Local Plan viability testing purposes, having been endorsed for use by Government for this purpose within PPGV. As a result, the ARV does not comply with PPGV paragraphs 008 and 010 which clearly state that transparency is required in respect of viability appraisal assumptions and it is entirely unclear how evidence would be presented by SCC at examination for robust assessment and interrogation by the Inspector and participants. Within Peel’s January 2017 representations to the ARV 2016, it was stated that the majority of high density apartments (constructed well in excess of six storeys) would cost in region of £1,722-£1,991/m² (£160-185/ft²) dependent on height, location and specification. Costs have increased since January 2017, but the ARV continues to adopt costs which are significantly below the 2017 costs referenced by Peel. The ARV does not clarify the height/ number of storeys that their high density apartment appraisals are based upon - other than stating that

density apartments and high density apartments respectively in the 2020 ARV. The high density apartment typology cost is based on a height of 15 storeys. Some high density schemes will come forward at a height less than this, whilst in some other limited circumstances developments will come forward in excess of 15 storeys (particularly at Greengate). Building at less than 15 storeys will incur costs less than the £1,884 applied by the city council, whilst costs would be expected to be higher for developments in excess of 15 storeys. The approach to using a 15 storey height for high density apartments reflects evidence collected as part of determining the appropriate typologies (and as explain within the main ARV report). With regards to the use of BCIS build costs, these are not representative of the actual build costs that Urban Vision are seeing on actual schemes within Salford, including those that have been verified by the district valuer. In revising build costs, the 2020 ARV has taken into account emerging costs in the work Three Dragons et al are undertaking on behalf of the GMCA in support of the GMSF. This has identified build costs having regard to: Information from the appointed costs consultants (WWA) in-

house benchmarking database, sense checked with local practices

Workshop discussion and subsequent written comments A wide range of viability assessments submitted to and/or

checked by GM local authorities

the build costs are for “6+” storeys. The RDLPR states that the costs relate to schemes of up to 18 storeys, with taller schemes to “be considered as part of the planning application process.” Peel therefore continues to regard the high density apartment construction costs adopted within the ARV as too low to reflect market reality, in line with commentary provided in respect of understated costs applied to other development typologies. Except for high density apartments, the build costs (base cost plus externals) adopted within the ARV fall below RICS BCIS lower quartile base costs, which exclude external works and are therefore considered by Peel to be wholly inadequate. Furthermore, no supporting evidence is provided by SCC within the ARV to support the adopted construction costs. The use of very low construction costs will vastly overstate development viability, and will dramatically skew the results emerging from the ARV. Given the above Peel requests: SCC publish a copy of the ARV’s adopted base build plus

external works cost data for each typology to enable examination of the adopted assumptions at a suitable level of detail and to ensure that they are justified in line with NPPG paragraph 35.

Further detail is provided by SCC in respect of the evidence adopted in the assessment of build costs and external works, the assumed scale (storeys) of the modelled mid and high density apartment developments, and further evidence to show that the construction costs adopted are based on an appropriate range of developments which include family housing and apartment schemes well in excess of six storeys.

SCC conduct a revised assessment of construction costs which must be clearly based upon market evidence of current costs. If evidence cannot be provided, SCC must revert to BCIS costs, in line with PPGV. The revised cost assessment must provide the necessary transparent detail to enable appropriate stakeholder

review and engagement, and to ensure that viability assessments are modelled on the basis of achievable and deliverable levels of construction costs

(The Peel Group) Paragraph 4.41 of the viability report correctly highlights that PPG guides viability assessments to use appropriate data (e.g. BCIS data). However, the viability report then goes on to confirm that these aren’t being used as; ‘Urban Vision Property Services’ have advised that the costs are not representative of the actual build costs that they are seeing on actual schemes within Salford’, and so BCIS costs are not used. No information has been provided as to where the information used is derived from, how many schemes it considers in order to calculate an average build cost, or what time period (or price base) the figures are presented at. As such, it is impossible for any participant in this consultation exercise to review the data and confirm whether it forms a suitable and appropriate evidence base on which to assess viability. The BCIS data is based on an industry standard methodology and dataset, whereas the Salford data is from an unknown source, unknown sample size and unknown date. As such, it is particularly concerning given that the Council are seeking to ignore guidance contained within the PPG in respect of data that will have a significant impact on any viability assessment and therefore the overall affordable housing. Table 1 below compares the construction cost figures (£ per m2) used within the viability appraisal compared to the median figures presented by BCIS for Salford rebased to Q1 2018. Houses Mid density

apts (3 to 5 storeys)

High density apts (6+ storeys)

The issue of build costs have been fully reconsidered as part of the 2020 ARV. Having regard to schemes coming forward in the city, and also consideration of viability assessments submitted with planning application, the 2020 ARV uses the following build costs that are inclusive of infrastructure and external costs. £1,130 per sqm for houses £1,292 per sqm for mid density apartments (3 to 5 storeys) £1,884 per sqm for high density apartments (6-15 storeys) It can be seen therefore that build costs from the 2019 ARV have increased by 9.4%, 21.3% and 16.7% for the houses, mid density apartments and high density apartments respectively in the 2020 ARV. With regards to the use of BCIS build costs, these are not representative of the actual build costs that Urban Vision are seeing on actual schemes within Salford, including those that have been verified by the district valuer.

SLP ARV £1,033 £1,065 £1,615 BCIS (Q1 2018) median for Salford (£ per m2)

£1,161 £1,335 £1,653

BCIS and SLP difference (£ per m2)

+£128 +£270 +£38

As shown, in respect of all development types the BCIS data, recommended for use by the PPG, provides notably higher estimated build costs in Salford. This will significantly impact the findings of the viability assessment and the ability of developments to provide the level of affordable housing envisaged within the draft policy. For example, using the average floorspace by scheme typology (Annex C of the viability assessment), for a mid-density scheme of 125 dwellings, this would result in an increased build cost of almost £2.4mill based on an increased build cost of £270 per m2. To put this into perspective, Table 30 of the viability assessment confirms the level of surplus associated with mid-density schemes in high value areas. If the additional £2.4million of build costs were allowed for, only a scheme providing 15% or less of affordable housing provision would be viable, rather than the 35% figure calculated using the lower build costs. (Bredale Properties Ltd) Abnormals

ARV Paragraph 4.45 states that the appraisals make no allowance for abnormals, proposing that any site specific issues should result in reduced existing use values. This does not reflect commercial reality and is inconsistent with PPGV. For generic typology testing, the exclusion of an abnormal cost allowance can be regarded as appropriate. However, in doing so it is essential that: a) the viability testing (and application of policy costs thereafter)

includes a sufficient buffer back from the margins (i.e. maximum

The approach taken in the 2019 ARV with regards to abnormal costs has been carried forward into the 2020 ARV. The approach is considered appropriate for area wide viability testing, and is fully consistent with the PPG on viability which states that costs include: “abnormal costs, including those associated with treatment for contaminated sites or listed buildings, or costs associated with brownfield, phased or complex sites. These costs should be taken into account when defining benchmark land value.” (paragraph: 012 Reference ID: 10-012-20180724).

limits) of viability. This will ensure that viability testing results and conclusions / recommendations are not presented at levels that risk rendering development sites unviable when subject to the introduction of abnormal works costs, which are generally found to apply to both brownfield and greenfield development sites; or

b) the BLVs are increased to represent the serviced land values (i.e. assuming that abnormal costs have already been met through works undertaken by the landowner prior to disposal for development).

Such costs cannot be accommodated by the landowner if adopting BLVs that reflect a “raw material view” operating on a ‘EUV+’ basis as doing so would risk reducing land values to remove a suitable incentive for disposal. The exclusion of abnormal costs from the viability appraisals will markedly overstate the appraisal results – given that abnormal works can be costly and will frequently be incurred early in a sites development (hence having a more pronounced cashflow impact). If the ARV is to exclude abnormal costs, then Peel requests that suitable flexibility must be introduced within the wording of policies within the RDSLP to provide recourse to site-specific viability assessment at the application stage such that where sites are impacted by abnormal costs, this constitutes a valid justification for reductions in the level of affordable housing (or tenures/unit mix) in order for schemes to be delivered on a viable basis. (The Peel Group)

This is reiterated in paragraph 014 of the PPG which states that benchmark land value should reflect the implications of abnormal costs; site-specific infrastructure costs; and professional site fees. With regards to the flexibility of policies to provide recourse to site specific viability, policy PC1 of the SLP: DMP sets out the circumstances where reduced planning obligations will be permitted. Abnormal costs would be a consideration to be taken into account as part of this.

Professional fees

ARV Table 10 also states building design fees (professional fees) are adopted at 5% of build costs, which is stated to have been based upon viability assessments submitted to SCC in support of planning applications - this evidence should be transparently published, as this allowance is extremely low when viewed against general market

The allowance for professional fees in the 2019 ARV was 5% of build costs. Having considered the issue further Urban Vision have advised that 7% is an appropriate allowance for the purposes of this area wide study, and this has been incorporated into the 2020 ARV.

experience and expectations, and will unduly overstate reported levels of development viability. In Turley’s direct experience, viability appraisals for a range of site-specific development schemes have been submitted to SCC with professional fees at 9% of total costs. Whilst frequently on an unsubstantiated basis Urban Vision proposed a figure of 7% for professional fees in negotiations, clearly this demonstrates that an appropriate allowance falls within the range of 7%-9% of total development costs. Given the above, professional fees should be incorporated within the ARV appraisals at rates which reflect development reality, with an 8%-10% allowance regarded as the minimum appropriate provision for Local Plan viability assessment purposes. (The Peel Group) Contingency

At ARV Table 10, the building contingencies are stated as 3% of build costs. Peel regards the current contingency allowance as insufficient, with contingency for Local Plan viability testing widely accepted at 5% - on both brownfield and greenfield sites. The building contingency allowances are actually applied to base construction costs and external works within the ARV appraisals; contingency allowances should apply to all costs of construction, including: base costs; external works; accessible and adaptable costs in achieving national accessible and adaptable dwelling standards under optional requirement M4(2) of the Building Regulations; and professional fees. In order to ensure that the viability assessment is not positioned at the margins of viability, Peel requests that contingency is applied at 5% to all cost of construction within the ARV.

For reasons outlined within the main report to the ARV, 3% of build costs remains an appropriate figure for contingency. This has only been applied to the base build costs (which are an ‘all-in’ costs and so therefore are applied to externals). It is not considered industry standard to then apply this contingency to other costs such as accessible and adaptable dwellings, space standards, professional fees etc. In some respects however there is an argument that it is not appropriate to include contingency in a high level area wide viability assessment. The PPG on viability at paragraph 012 advises that explicit reference to project contingency costs should be included in circumstances where scheme specific assessment is deemed necessary, with a justification for contingency relative to project risk and developers return. No other reference to contingencies is made elsewhere in the PPG.

(The Peel Group) Developer profit

The developer profit level is set out within ARV Table 10 (other development costs) and equates to 18% of GDV. Testing effectively models an on-site affordable housing contribution. Overall, a developer profit of 18% of GDV is regarded as appropriate on the basis of a blended profit level for this exercise. A developer return equating to 20% of GDV is regarded as the minimum requirement for market housing sale appraisal. ARV Table 10 states that a lower percentage developer profit will be appropriate for specific types of scheme (e.g. a Private Rented Sector scheme or one where units are to be sold to a Registered Provider (RP)). The Private Rented Sector (‘PRS’) or ‘build to rent’ (‘BTR’) housing product is significantly different to standard built for sale houses or apartments, requiring alternative appraisal methodology to assess the investment value of the scheme, with fundamental alterations required to scheme design and cost assumptions. A range of assumptions would need to be amended to reflect the different requirements of a PRS/BTR scheme, if it was to be robustly viability tested for the purpose of informing policy. (The Peel Group)

Table 17 identifies a developer profit that equates to 17.5% of GDV. This is the mid-point of the range set out within the PPG and is considered to be an appropriate benchmark in current market conditions. As noted by the respondent this level of profit is a blended one given that the testing effectively models an on-site affordable housing contribution (with the contractor return usually being around 6% of the total construction cost of the affordable homes).

Impact of non-affordable housing planning obligations requirements

Accessible and adaptable homes

The costs adopted in the ARV are stated to be based upon an EC Harris cost assessment of a limited range of house types prepared on behalf of DCLG and published in September 2014. Whilst this represents a practical starting point to inform costs, Peel has two primary concerns with the robustness of this approach:

Clarity has been provided in the 2020 ARV main report as to how the EC Harris dwelling types have been aligned to the dwelling types used in the ARV. In relation to the costs used, the 2020 ARV has uplifted the costs to the present day as suggested by the respondent. The EC Harris costs were from Q2 in 2014 and have been uplifted to Q2 by

Remains unclear how the average extra over costs have been calculated from the source data as it is challenging to align the figures. No methodology is provided in respect of the adjustments made to the EC Harris assessment for those house types which fall outside the EC Harris assessment

The underlying evidence base is now in excess of four years old. If utilising this evidence, the historic published costs should be updated to present day (to reflect inflationary effects) by use of the RICS BCIS. RICS BCIS average construction prices across Greater Manchester have risen by 23.9% from September 2014 to Q3 2018

The ARV states that: “The process costs identified in the EC Harris report would be expected to reduce over time as architects/developers become more familiar with the standard, including in the time since the report was published. It is assumed that this offsets any inflation in professional fees (as this is the source of the costs).” There is no available evidence presented to substantiate this opinion, which is considered by Peel to be unfounded and unsound (contrary to NPPF paragraph 35b). The costs adopted within the ARV should be increased to reflect current day costings, and re-testing conducted on this basis. (The Peel Group)

13.68%. This is in line with BCIS general build indices which increased from 318.0 in June 2014 to 361.5 in June 2019 in order to provide a more up to date cost. Whilst an allowance has been made this is a conservative approach as it is likely that these standards are starting to filter through general build costs prepared by BCIS.

Sustainable energy in new developments

ARV paragraph 6.9 states that sustainable energy costs in new developments are only adopted in respect of Draft GMSF interim requirements for a 19% carbon reduction against Part L of the 2013 Building Regulations. No costs are included in respect of the Draft GMSF requirement for all development to be net zero carbon from 2028.

Policy EG1 of the SLP: DMP states that working towards the target that all new development shall be zero net carbon from 2028, the principles of the energy hierarchy shall be adopted in residential developments to exceed the energy efficiency of part L by 19% (and meet any subsequent revision to part L).

Peel expects consideration to be made within the ARV in respect of this target for Greater Manchester. It is unclear why such a requirement has not been sensitivity tested for its implications. (The Peel Group)

With regards to achieving zero net carbon from 2028 it should be noted that this viability assessment is based on current costs and policy requirements. Regard has also been had to paragraph 33 of the NPPF which states that policies in local plan should be reviewed to assess whether they need updating at least once every five years, and should then be updated as necessary.

Allotments

Reference is made at ARV paragraph 6.18 to “Actual costs from a limited number of recent allotment schemes that have been delivered in Salford have been provided by the city council’s environment and regeneration sections for the purposes of this assessment.” Peel requests that the evidence provided for the purpose of viability assessment is published for consultation to enable stakeholder review of the appropriateness of such costs. (The Peel Group)

The 2020 ARV has removed reference to a specific cost for allotments. Instead costs has been inputted into the ARV for meeting recreation standards (which includes the provision of allotments), and playing pitches / changing rooms as set out within by policy R1 of the SLP: DMP.

Impact of affordable housing requirement

Preferred tenure mix

RDSLP Policy H7 Affordable Housing proposes that all schemes will provide affordable housing on a tenure mix of 37.5% social rent; 37.5% affordable rent; and 25% shared ownership. It is stated that a “different affordable housing tenure mix from the table above may be acceptable where there is clear evidence this would help to better meet specifically identified local needs and address site-specific circumstances.” As drafted, the tenure mix requirements in RDSLP Policy H7 do not reflect the necessary reduction in the proportion of social rented and affordable rented tenures in the low, low/mid and mid value areas in comparison with the higher value areas, which are demonstrated within the ARV. (The Peel Group)

Policy H4 of the SLP:DMP requires that affordable housing is provided as follows: 37.5% social rented; 37.5% affordable rented and 25% shared ownership. The 2020 ARV fully reflects this tenure mix for all value areas.

Affordable housing requirements

RDSLP Policy H7 requires that: “All developments that provide 10 or more net additional dwellings, or are on a site of 0.5 hectares or more in size and provide any number of dwellings, shall deliver at least 20% of those dwellings as affordable housing.” ARV paragraphs 8.2-8.7 determine that: High density apartments in premium value areas cannot support

20% affordable housing provision, demonstrating a £144,308 deficit, but can support a 15% affordable housing provision at the proposed tenure mix; mid density apartments cannot support 20% affordable housing provision in mid, low/mid and low value areas; and

Family housing cannot support 20% affordable housing provision in low/mid and low value areas

The affordable housing policy requirements as set out in the RDSLP exceed those that are shown to be viable within the ARV for a number of value areas. This contradicts the requirements of the NPPF (paragraph 34) and PPGV. Peel supports the policy recognition in the RDSLP that site specific viability assessments may be required (policy PC1). As drafted, the RDSLP affordable housing policy requirements exceed the level of viable policy costs that sites can accommodate based upon the results of SCC’s own published viability evidence in the ARV. It is expected that this will require a significant proportion of sites to require recourse to site-specific viability assessment at the application stage. This will likely lead to delay in delivery and the incurring of additional costs to development, which the NPPF and

Policy H7 of the RDSLP set out a minimum 20% affordable housing requirement across the city (even if the ARV demonstrated this was not viable), with higher requirements where the 2019 ARV demonstrated that this was financially viable. The above policy approach has been carried forward into policy H4 of the SLP: DMP, even though the 2020 ARV demonstrates that some areas / types of dwellings remain unviable for affordable housing provision. The introduction / justification to policy H4 explains the rationale for the approach, in particular the significant need for affordable housing across the city. Support for site specific viability assessment potentially being required is welcomed.

PPGV seek to prevent due to the risk that this poses to delivery of Local Plans. Revisions to RDSLP affordable housing policies must reflect adjustments to the ARV undertaken to rectify the issues identified within this (and prior) representations submitted by Peel. (The Peel Group) Given issues with the assumptions used in the ARV, we raise concerns with the affordable housing policy as currently drafted (Bredale Properties Ltd).

Comments noted.

Affordable housing values

AVR Paragraph 7.8 states that based on “information supplied by registered providers active in Salford” the appropriate discount from open market value is 60% for social rented, 50% for affordable renting and 40% for shared ownership dwellings. Peel has held direct discussions with Registered Providers (‘RP’), including those currently active in Salford. At the present time Peel understands that offers will be made at discounts equating to 70% for social rent, 60-80% for affordable rented, and 25-40% for intermediate (shared ownership). The RDLPR states: “Explicit evidence has not been provided to support these discounts by the city council given that they are commercially sensitive, and have been provided to the city council on a confidential basis in order to inform the development of policy.” Whilst it may not be possible to provide explicit evidence, the provision of summary information should be made available for consultation review for it should only be utilised by SCC if it constitutes ‘appropriate, available evidence’ that can be examined in public.

The city council’s affordable housing officer who works within the Housing Strategy and Enabling team has close links to registered providers in the city, and on an annual basis requests information from registered providers. As part of this information request, the RPs are asked to provide details of discount from open market value that enable them to acquire units. The affordable housing officer has provided the following up to date discounts off open market value by tenure: 60% for social rented 50% for affordable rented 30% for shared ownership As can be seen therefore, the discounts off open market value area the same in the 2019 ARV and 2020 ARV for both social rented and affordable rented dwellings. The discount for shared ownership dwellings has fallen from 40% in the 2019 ARV to 30% in the 2020 ARV. The discounts set out within the representations from The Peel Group are not reflective of those provided to the affordable housing

Should SCC not be able to provide appropriate available evidence, Peel requests that SCC re-run the appraisals within the ARV to reflect the alternative discount levels to open market value proposed (as above). (The Peel Group)

officer by the registered providers, and there use has therefore been dismissed.

Green Belt land

In respect of the East of Boothstown site, the adjoining Boothstown housing estate is categorised as a high value area and it is inappropriate to assess the site at a higher value level without evidenced justification for the uplift. The Hazelhurst Farm site, now designated as a high value area within the ARV, is mostly surrounded by medium/high and high value areas and a medium/high value classification appears more appropriate to reflect current local market conditions (given SCC present no supporting evidence or methodology to justify why the Hazlehurst Farm site would outperform the current market). Allocating land as high and premium value areas within the ARV results in an increased affordable housing requirement in comparison with a lower value allocation, negatively impacting on viability and therefore deliverability. Peel requests that Green Belt sites are categorised consistently with the predominant surrounding value area within the ARV viability testing rather than applying a premium above the prevailing surrounding values, as currently appears to be the case. There is no evidence presented by SCC to justify the present approach. Revisions to the value areas applied to the East of Boothstown and Hazelhurst Farm sites are required, reducing to high and mid/high value areas respectively. (The Peel Group)

Issues around the release of Green Belt for new housing are being considered as part of the GMSF, and therefore fall outside of the scope of the SLP: DMP. As part of the evidence base for the GMSF, Three Dragons et al will be assessing the viability of each of the housing allocations that were included within the Revised Draft GMSF. This process will determine the level of affordable housing that each site can potentially support, having regard to costs and sales values etc. The proposed Revised Draft GMSF sites and the rest of the Green Belt do not fall under any of the value areas. Policy H4 of the SLP: DMP explains the following: “Green Belt land is not covered by the value areas, as new housing development within the Green Belt that is in excess of the thresholds in this policy will by definition be inappropriate. If exceptional circumstances exist to justify such development in the Green Belt, then the proportion of dwellings that are affordable must be maximised.”

Industry engagement

It is imperative that the detailed matters raised within this representation, in respect of the ARV, are addressed by SCC and Urban Vision. A new ARV is required and must be published for formal stakeholder review and comment in advance of issue of the next draft of the RDSLP. Critical to the success of producing this ARV addendum will be a further, meaningful process of industry engagement. Specifically, in accordance with PPGV, Peel requests that SCC and Urban Vision engage with landowners, promoters and developers to rectify stated concerns by effectively establishing and seeking to agree appropriate inputs into the ARV. Engagement to date has been insufficient to address the outstanding issues raised. (The Peel Group)

Paragraphs 4.5 to 4.11 of the 2020 ARV main report sets out industry engagement in relation to the city council’s ARV, and also highlights engagement in relation to the Greater Manchester viability assessment being prepared at the GM level. As noted in paragraph 4.7 of the ARV there were only consultees provided comments in the relation to the 2019 ARV.

Annex H – GMSF developer workshop notes

GMSF Viability - Developer workshops: September 2019

1

GMSF Viability – Developer Workshop 1 and 2 2 – 4pm

18th September and 30th 2019 The Studio, The Hive, Lever Street, Manchester

List of Attendees

Workshop 1 Workshop 2

Project team GMCA GMCA

Three Dragons Three Dragons

Troy Planning & Design Troy Planning & Design

Ward Williams and Associates

Participants Wainhomes Bolton at Home

Barratt PLC Jigsaw Homes

Richborough Estates Southway Housing

Cushman Wakefield Grasscroft Property

HIMOR Group Story Homes

Turley Redrow

Mosscare St Vincents NJL Consulting

House Builders Federation Carter Jonas

Great Places Turley

Harworth Group Morris Homes

Stockport MBC House Builders Federation

Salford City Council Pozzoni Architecture

Arcadis Strategic Land Group

Pegasus Group Seddon Homes

Moorside Homes Keepmoat

Stannybrook Bury Council

M J Gleeson Manchester City Council

Taylor Wimpey Vernon & Co

Far East Consortium

Russell Homes

Onward

Persimmon Homes

Salford City Council

Please note: this note is ordered in line with the workshop presentation and may not always reflect

the order in which issues were discussed.

The remainder of the note shows each of the Powerpoint slides used to guide discussion, followed by

a description of the main points raised at the workshops. Some comments were common to both

workshops but some were raised in one workshop or the other – where the differences in views are

significant, these have been highlighted.


2

Introduction

All those attending the workshops were welcomed and thanked for their time in contributing to the

study. 3D noted that the workshop note would include all the main points of discussion but not

attributed to individuals and that the workshop note would be included in the consultants’ report of

the viability study.

GMCA noted that that following the second round of public consultation there will be further revisions

to the GMSF with a third round of public consultation taking place in Summer 2020.

3D explained that two workshops for developers, agents and local authorities are being held, offering

an opportunity to agree key assumptions underlying viability analysis of the GMSF. Following on from

the workshops, interviews will take place with many of the landowners and agents of the proposed

allocated sites in the GMSF when possible. 3D also noted that a range of specialist inputs were being

sought to inform the study, including for achieving the carbon reduction policies in the draft plan and

the costs of site decontamination.

These meeting notes will be in the public domain as they will form part of the Final Report. The

discussions will be anonymised for data protection and confidentiality purposes.

3D invited feedback on the meeting notes – however if any assumptions/typologies are to be

challenged – these need to be appropriately evidenced.

Discussion

Workshop participants welcomed the opportunity for dialogue with GMCA.


3

Policy context for viability assessment of the GMSF

3D reiterated that where possible engagement with developers and site promoters will take place for

the proposed allocations in the GMSF.

3D clarified that the viability models will be using current costs and values and will not take into

account hypothetical variations, such as in the inflation rate.

Discussion

There was no comment from the workshops


4

Approach

Discussion

There was no comment from the workshops


5

Anticipated site supply

3D noted that nearly 80% of the SHLAA sites which were put forward to the GMCA exceeded 51 units

and that nearly 75% of sites are on brownfield land.

Discussion

Workshop noted that although the SHLAA process identifies significant numbers of sites, they

questioned whether the SHLAA process was up to date and able to deliver the proposed numbers.

They also identified the shortage and constrained nature of new build sites which meant that volume

builders, for many years, had not been able to secure development land in parts of Greater

Manchester.


6

Residential typologies


7

3D explained that the above typologies represented a cross section of sites in the land supply over the

life of the GMSF; the selection of typologies was based on an analysis of the site supply shown in the

SHLAA. The typologies will be the basis for the generic testing and used to help demonstrate the

viability of the GMSF. The assessment of the typologies will be complemented by analysis of the

proposed allocated sites in the GMSF, which will be tested individually, based on the requirements set

out in the GMSF and applicable local policy.

Discussion:

Broad agreement from participants that additional testing of larger SHLAA sites may be useful,

although noted that, as there are not that many very large sites, perhaps some of the larger typologies

identified by 3D already cover the spectrum of sites in the site supply.

Building heights and apartments

• Flat schemes vary in size. Do not assume that all high rise will have high dwelling counts.

Some have low EUV but there is still a market to develop;

• City centre is high density and the heights of buildings shown are about right – with build

costs at c £230 per sq ft at tallest buildings (at c40 storeys). There is a ‘sweet spot’ for tall

buildings – just under 12 storeys and very limited interest in schemes above 15-16 storeys.

With a shortage of specialist contractors who can build above 16 storeys.

• Commented that Salford masterplan says 9 storeys max.

• However, an alternative view put forward was that it is the apartment mix rather than

building height that impacts on viability with examples of taller schemes noted– for

example there are 23 storey developments at Exchange Quay and on Ordsall Lane

• Other than for the ground floor, most tall buildings are single use - although there are odd

examples with hotels and office or hotels and residential. Circle Square (former BBC

Studios) is a good example of recent high-rise mixed-use development. However, there

are not many examples. Beetham Tower was the last major one pre 2008 recession.

• Angel Gardens (developer Moda Living) was recently completed and is now letting – 34

storeys and 466 units, mix of studios through to 3 beds, terrace, gym, sports pitch and

concierge.

• In areas beyond (Oldham, Rochdale and Tameside were specifically mentioned) the city

centres it is different, with building heights generally below 6 storeys – generally

considered that tall buildings are not viable in these localities.

Scheme values

• Higher residential sales values do not necessarily mean intention to build residential –

residential use competes with commercial or student development and multi-storey

carparks

• Flatted PRS market in the city centre, with some limited amounts as houses across the

northern towns

Scheme density and mixes

• Houses are the norm in the northern towns – not flats

• Low and mid-density schemes in north Manchester compete with retail and offices.

• Mix of housing is important – one comment that 1 bed properties are not viable


8

Specialist housing types (see later for comments re older persons housing)

• Student housing – 4 beds per cluster is an average which is used in Leeds.

• In Salford, there is the Crescent Masterplan which incorporates purpose-built student

living. There is demand for this, particularly to accommodate international students. 6 and

16 storey developments are reasonable scales to model. Accommodation is more geared

to studios.

• Historically there have been low rise student villages of 2/3 storey student development.

• Manchester City has been ‘clamping down’ on bespoke student towers.

• Some studios are ‘kitchenettes’, which could have less value as their kitchens are not as

functional as studios in terms of facilities.

Benchmark land values

3D introduced the discussion on BLV, explaining that current use with a premium uplift (typically 20 -

30%) reflected national policy advice (See PPG). BLV for greenfield land is generally taken as 10 times

uplift in value on agricultural land.

Discussion

Points raised by the workshop included:

• Criticism of the greenfield values shown, especially for smaller sites of c 50 units.

• One workshop identified a suitable BLV for large green fields sites of c £100,000 per gross

acre minimum (at least £240,000 per hectare) and that on smaller greenfield sites the

BMLV should be much higher. The other workshop quoted c£600,000 per hectare gross

as suitable BLV on small to medium greenfield sites

• Smaller greenfield sites will be more sensitive to local residential values – if they are higher

locally then landowner expectation and therefore the premium should be higher;

• Brownfield land benchmark values also considered to be too low. One participant

suggested that for ‘Brownfield Industrial’ – the BLV is considered in excess in £500,000

per acre (gross) (£1.235 million pha) due to existing use value. It was questioned whether

this was realistic across all of GM and whether there is evidence to support such a value.


9

• Consultant team asked to review transactional data for schemes with planning permission

and that are policy compliant (to accord with the latest update of the PPG)

• Consultant team also asked to review treatment of BLV in adjoining areas e.g.

Halton/Cheshire East to help identify a suitable (greenfield/large scale) BLV

• Sufficient value needs to be considered for a realistic BMLV, otherwise sites may not come

forward, for example on greenfield sites if land is held in families

• There should be more market analysis – suggested that PPG could be interpreted that it

advises to look at market evidence. Transactions are considered to be good evidence to

use, although it was agreed that these would have to be adjusted to take into account

policy compliance and to disregard ‘outliers’. It was questioned whether the land market

operation in GM had responded yet to changes in PPG about EUV+.

• Greenfield land should be categorised as Green Belt, Protected Open Land and Other

Open Land – different values would be applicable to each designation.

• GMSF is reliant on town centre sites coming forward, benchmark land values should

include an applicable value, especially for the northern towns.

• With regards derelict land, it was noted that derelict mills are constrained due to access,

listed building issues and sometimes high abnormal costs. Some mills are clearly viable to

develop; however, others are not. No evidence of recent transactions.

• Some mill sites do have existing value, particularly as there is value in demolition available

for developers.

• Specifically for derelict/cleared sites– noted that there is some value in the cleared site

e.g. as open storage and this needs to be considered when arriving at suitable BLV for

these types of sites;

Workshop participants were requested to forward any evidence to support alternative BLV to those

proposed by the consultant team.

Sales values and market areas


10

3D provided a summary of the sales values and value areas which have been identified. These value

areas would be used to test the viability of the generic sites. Values are based on Land Registry data

for new build properties aligned with EPC certificates to arrive at a per sq m value. There are some

areas where new build data is more limited and the data has had to be supplemented with data about

second-hand properties. 3D explained that used EPC data against LR values

Discussion

Workshop noted the assumptions used and raised no fundamental objections to the consultant team’s

approach. However, several specific points were raised by the workshop

In response to a question from the workshop about the relationship between - housing value areas

and market areas, 3D explained that the housing value areas are based on a statistical analysis of new

build house prices that groups together values within bands and provides an average house price

within that band – it not based on local authority boundaries as values within local authorities vary

considerably.

In response to a question from the consultant team about building on the edge of a social housing

estate and whether this would uplift the value of social housing and or have an impact on the value of

the new development; workshop comments as follows:


11

• This varies with the interactions and linkages between with the new and existing housing

stock. Crime is a particular variable which may have influence on this.

• Help to Buy is coming to an end, which may affect house prices.

• School catchment areas also important

In response to a question from the consultant team about the scale of development needed to create

it’s a separate market identity, workshop comments as follows:

• Differing views on this – some saying will require at least 500 units to achieve this but

others thought would be 1,000 units (which will lead to updated infrastructure, transport,

community facilities). Depends spatially where this is as well.

• School catchment areas have a significant impact on house prices.

• GMSF needs to provide more incentive to build in these regeneration areas.

• Needs place making input to create value uplift (and this often involves public

investment). Policies in the GMSF will need to be affordable to be implemented –

introducing the policies will not create value uplift on their own.

• No developer will anticipate value uplift within the appraisal process;

• Schemes quoted as examples of large scale developments in low value areas included

West Gorton, Lower Broughton, Charlestown, Oldham town centre.

Also a range of other comments:

• Specific comments on the market values and rents shown:

o Detached values looked too much of an increase from semi/terrace; and

o City centre values are lower than found in the market. This may be because City

Council policy requires dwellings to be above NDSS standards and so, when multiplied

by the £s per sq m shown, will give a higher unit price

• PRS – not particularly strong from capital value perspective in low value areas but

generates an early return i.e. multiple units sold to an investor and this can prove an

attractive option.


12

Residential testing

Consultant team explained that further work would be undertaken on assumptions around values to

be used in testing.

Discussion

Workshop comments on PRS:

• The first workshop raised that Countryside/Sygma are developing 2-4 bed houses for rent

in some of the northern towns. The second workshop raised concerns about the ability of

PRS being delivered in low value areas.

• There is no clarity from Manchester City Council on how they appraise viability for Build

to Rent. However, it is sensible to have a BTR modelled for this study;

• Salford Council can share information on Build to Rent schemes in Salford.

Workshop comments on National Described Space Standards (NDSS)

• Flats in taller buildings in higher value areas may exceed NDSS. Larger units (3-4 bedroom

dwellings) will likely meet NDSS

• In northern town centres and lower value areas NDSS space standards are likely not being

met, particularly for smaller units and there is a ceiling on the values that the market will

bear (3D asked for evidence to demonstrate how this works in practice);

• Concerns expressed about the impact of NDSS on viability. Argued that at, for example

35 dph, if NDSS introduced then could be difficult to achieve quality developments at this

density with NDSS. However, it was noted that many housebuilders (national and

regional) already build in excess of NDSS and this issue affected a subset of the market.

• For smaller units, the greater floor space translates into higher costs but does not attract

an increase in values – which are set by local market conditions and affordability for

buyers. This was seen to impact most on viability in lower value areas

• PPG requires local plans to justify introduction of NDSS and GMCA should note this,

especially the need to provide evidence to support the policy and consider dwelling sizes


13

that are currently being built and implications for development density if they choose to

introduce NDSS. Also noted that Manchester City Council already has guidance that

exceeds the national standards.

• Introduction of NDSS may reduce densities – evidence is to be provided to the consultant

team by the workshop participants

• Need to be aware of setting an appropriate and realistic pattern of site coverage -

suggested that ‘real’ schemes are reviewed and used to assess mixes

• Fastest selling sites in north Manchester are predominantly 3 bed units. No one trading

up has sufficient equity to be able to buy 5 bed or larger units

Looking at mix – GMSF moving towards flats and away from more traditional mix of houses. Workshop

has raised concerns on whether this is viable.

Workshop comments re leasehold development (discussed at one workshop only due to time

pressures);

• Leasehold houses are no longer being developed – so any impact on prices has already

been captured;

• But - Manchester City Council land is always sold on a leasehold basis so some leasehold

development will remain.

Affordable Housing


14

3D presented the above information and noted that the affordable housing costs are based on

national averages which have been found sound at Examination. Rents were averages derived from

published local BRMA data and did not reflect any individual schemes.

3D clarified that the testing undertaken would not be used to identify a single affordable housing

target across Greater Manchester (for the GMSF). Individual local authorities would continue to set

their own affordable housing targets and would need to undertake their own viability studies.

Workshop discussion

• Affordable rents – suggested that these should be set at 100%of LHA. Other figures broadly

agreed;

• Push social rent tenure towards the top (which reflects the government’s position), then

shared ownership, then help to buy then affordable rent.

• Worshop set out the varying AH targets and approaches across GM, citing examples such as

Oldham/Rochdale with 7.5% of GDV per site is to be used for affordable housing – consultant

team reiterated that a range of AH percentages would be tested according to value area,

representing the range of targets set out in plans, also noting that whilst targets are in place

there is a mixed picture in terms of policy compliance.


15

• HAs have difficulty with Affordable Rent and social rent on the same scheme (because of rent

differences when letting properties). Explained that the intention was to test AR first and then

add in SR if schemes worked with AR. The mixing of tenures and issues this may cause is more

of an issue for individual planning applications rather than broad viability testing.

• Five GM Local Authorities do not have access to grants to construct social housing (Bolton,

Oldham. Rochdale, Tameside, Wigan) as difference between social and market rents is

marginal, with the remaining able to because of their higher market values.

• Some S106 contributions has been used to fund affordable housing in lower value areas –

however the delivery has been very low.

• Noted that the current draft of the GMSF does not set a % target for AH but does indicate

overall numbers required and that AH is to be delivered through various mechanisms. GMCA

noted that the GMSF is not relying on S106 to deliver AH. Workshop noted this but still

commented on need to ensure that this level of AH (25%) ask was tested;

• Voids and bad debts are being affected by Universal Credit and rent arrears are increasing.

4% void and bad debts put forward as a more reliable level based on local experiences;

• Based on RP experience suggested that the testing should use 35% SO share size in lower value

areas and 40% in higher values – or could compromise at 35% across Greater Manchester for

this study.

Specialist older persons housing

3D highlighted the assumptions for specialist older persons housing proposed and use the RHG guide

and include additional non saleable space and build costs (https://retirementhousinggroup.com/rhg-

publications/)

Discussion

Workshops generally agreed with the assumptions with following specific comments

• (Private) Older person housing – more likely to be found in the south of Greater Manchester

and would expect larger developments than shown above as Op1 - at c 60 – 80 units and could

https://retirementhousinggroup.com/rhg-publications/





16

be up to 100. (in 3/3.5 storey developments). Extra care schemes tend to be predominantly 2

bed units

• Sites for older persons housing were traditionally in more suburban locations but increasingly

moving towards locations with high levels of accessibility and may be found on former

industrial land or other uses e.g. ex car dealerships

It is acknowledged that in London that this increases to 120 bed and located within centres, however

no evidence in Manchester of elderly accommodation in the city centre. Costs to incorporate elderly

persons housing within multi storey open market residential schemes are likely to make it unviable.

Construction Costs


17

3D explained that cost consultants (Ward Williams Associates) are team members and that they had

arrived at the build and associated costs through benchmarking across their own database of

comparable schemes. WWA explained their background and basis for the build costs used and

referencing BCIS. It was explained by 3D and WWA that the figures presented were an initial review

and presented for comment as to their appropriateness for testing and would be considered further

as more information from the development industry was forthcoming.

Other development costs are based on national guidance and averages and have been found sound

at local plan examinations.

The policy and s106 costs are an average based on a review of planning policy and analysis of signed

s106 agreements across the GM local authorities.

Noted that one LA has CIL and this will be considered in the testing. Potential future CIL not taken

into account – dealing with current values and costs.

Discussion

Would like to see differentiation in costs between large and small sites – local developers building a

30 unit scheme will have a much higher costs than volume housebuilders;


18

• Figures for build costs for 7storey + blocks look high. There are a limited number of

contractors who can undertake this sort of development and those that do, have

established supply chains which keep costs down. Costs shown are about 10% too high –

£2500 per sq m maximum for the tallest. BtR costs could be slightly higher, reflecting a

higher spec.

• Half of allocated sites may not be deliverable based on these calculations;

• External works –both workshops described as low – one workshop quoting 10-15% of

build costs and the other12-13% of base build costs. But there was some uncertainty

about what is included as ‘external works’ and list below is for clarification.

• Garages may need to be split between double garage/single garage - Proportion of double

garages in low density schemes will increase as % detached in the scheme increases;

• Developer return – higher return needed in more challenging regeneration areas and for

SMEs – 3D agreed to review for SMEs. Development in GM described as ‘risky’ and

therefore 20% is a minimum and was said to be used by Manchester City Council;

• 6% return for AH contractors is too low but this does depends on payment profile for the

site and HAs/LAs working on stage payments which supports a 6% return although others

saying that contractors return of 8/9% more typical. Consultant team requested to Look

at neighbouring local authority viability studies for accepted levels of returns.

• One workshop commented that contingency costs should be factored in – 3% on

greenfield, 5% on brownfield. The other workshop was silent on this;

• Electrical charging points per unit or per parking space, these are likely to be trickle charge

rather than the expensive quick charge;

• Net biodiversity gain – only applied for certain areas. GMEU can provide assistance on

Biodiversity Net Gain and has tested the Defra metric for biodiversity net gain on within

recent planning applications. Calculator available to assist;

• No comments on the allowances for opening up and strategic infrastructure but

participants wary of commenting until have had the opportunity to consider further and

have been able to review the schedule of costs included as part of the external works and

those allocated to opening up costs (as shown in this note).

• Volume house builders do not have cost consultants – this work will be done in house.

• Developer return – stronger return in challenging market areas. Smaller developers may

require a stronger developer return, suggested at 25%. They also do not benefit from a

competitive finance rate (due to economies of scale).

• There was a suggestion that 6% return is not enough for the affordable housing contractor

return – Consultant team explained that this figure has been tested at numerous

examinations.

• It was suggested that there could be inconsistency with area wide viability testing in other

authorities in the north west e.g. Lancaster

3D clarified that CIL will be included as a cost for allocated sites if applicable. For the generic testing,

as CIL is only raised by one local authority, it will not be appropriate to include within the base testing.

If there is a significant difference between the S106 allowance and the combined S106 ask and CIL

then a sensitivity test may be considered.

3D confirmed that land value (based on the BLV) would be included within the cashflow analysis.


19

Delivery Rates

Workshop discussion

Discussion focussed on the rate of delivery and number of developers on site. The following ratios

were suggested by the workshops:

• 2 flags over a certain number of units - 250 at one workshop, 500 at the other

• 4 flags 3,000 + units

Sales rates for flats vary by type of development.

50 units per annum for each flag considered to be acceptable (if includes AH) for larger schemes but

is an optimistic rate for smaller schemes (say schemes of 50 units and below) which won’t complete

within 1 year. Consultant team confirmed that the assessment starts on ‘breaking ground’

Non residential uses

Following a query from the workshop, the consultant team noted that would also be considering

viability of non-residential uses on allocated sites following same principles as set out for residential

uses.

Close of workshop

The consultant team thanked those attending the workshop for their contributions and noted that a

note of the combined workshops would be circulated for comment, with a request for workshop

participants to provide additional evidence to the consultant team, to support any alternative

assumptions they wished to put forward.

The workshop will be given two to three weeks to review the draft notes once these have been

distributed.

Where agreed site promoters and developers for the allocations in the GMSF will be contacted shortly

to initialise discussion – with interviews to take place in October - December to establish further

information about their relevant sites which will need to be considered in the viability testing.


20

Breakdown of plot (externals) and site infrastructure/

opening costs

There were requests at the workshop to include a breakdown of what was included within the plot

externals and other site infrastructure and opening up costs set out in the presentation. The

breakdown is that used for the figures set out in the presentation although following further

discussion is potentially subject to change:

Plot (external) works on greenfield sites only (7%)

1. Front garden wall (OR 4, below)

2. Front grass/seeding

3. Back garden grass/seeding

4. Drive = 24m2 (Unlit) (OR 1, above)

5. Fencing (one side + rear and 1 side of front)

6. Single Access Gate

7. Path

8. Incoming services/connections (Excluded)

9. Service Trenching Only (Cables/Pipes included in connection charges)

10. Drainage - foul to front and surface to front and rear (Manholes/Pipework/Connections/RWPs/SVPs’ etc. (Under building in housing. Connections out to road elsewhere)

NB:-

a) The above varies in terms of DAS requirements and may exclude drives but include front

garden walls etc. but it does NOT include the often quoted ‘’half road frontage’’. ALL roads

are included in Infrastructure uplift.

b) Garages are itemised separately.

Infrastructure and land preparation on greenfield sites

We have previously carried out exercises to determine this percentage uplift on Housing for the land

preparation and site wide Infrastructure over a wide range of schemes and it does range from 22%

to as high as 45%, although most are within the 20 to 30% range. This calculation normally excludes

S278 Works, S106 Costs and Abnormals. The first two are separately costed and guidance suggests

abnormals should come out of land value. The percentage refers to the addition to base build cost

for providing 'normal' Site Works, Drainage, External Services including:-

1. Site Clearance & Tree Protection Fencing (Excludes Demolitions) 2. On Site Carriageways (Secondary & Tertiary) whether full of half frontage including, topsoil

strip, road construction, blacktop, kerbs, lighting and trenching. 3. On Site Main Foul & Surface Water Drainage for Site and Roads (Up to Plot Connection) 4. Site wide services (Gas, Water, Electricity, Telecomms) including connections.


21

5. General site wide landscaping including planting. 6. Open space which may include Buffer Zones and Ecological Corridors depending on extent. 7. Non-Adoptable Parking Spaces in Residential Land Allocation 8. Site Wide Walls & Fencing (Plot Boundary Works In Housing) 9. Landscaping to Common Areas in Residential Land Allocation 10. Adoption & Maintenance Costs for Site Wide Highways & Drainage

NB:-

a) Some items dip in and out of ‘’measured works’’ by sometimes being included in S106 figures (e.g.

play space) elsewhere or are additional measures such as SANG land or other mitigation, which is

one of the reasons the above percentages vary so much.

Annex I – Sales values per square metre Summary by value area Sales value area Property

sample size

Mean property value per sqm (£)

Sales value area

Value per sqm for appraisals(£)

Agecroft 41 2,425 Mid/high £2,500

Barton and Peel Green 18 2,151 Mid £2,200 Boothstown 22 2,960 High £2,900 Broughton Park 16 2,518 Mid/high £2,500 Cadishead 24 2,163 Mid £2,200 Chapel Street - outside inner relief route

72 3,262 Premium £3,500

Chapel Street - within inner relief route

99 3,470 Premium £3,500

Charlestown 34 2,504 Mid/High £2,500 Claremont 38 2,731 High £2,900 Eccles 31 2,818 High £2,900 Eccles New Road 31 1,802 Low £1,800 Ellesmere Park and Monton 26 2,768 High £2,900 Higher Broughton 21 2,329 Mid/high £2,500 Irlam 30 2,358 Mid/high £2,500 Kersal Moor 27 2,221 Mid £2,200 Langworthy 29 2,191 Mid £2,200 Little Hulton 22 1,950 Low/mid £2,000 Lower Broughton 32 2,214 Mid £2,200 Lower Kersal 22 1,837 Low £1,800 Mid Swinton 26 2,372 Mid/high £2,500 North Swinton and Clifton 35 1,987 Low/mid £2,000 North Walkden 36 2,377 Mid/high £2,500 Ordsall 24 2,384 Mid/high £2,500 Ordsall Waterfront 82 3,123 High £2,900 Pendleton and Brindle Heath 27 1,963 Low/mid £2,000 Salford Quays 77 3,364 Premium £3,500 Seedley 17 2,123 Mid £2,200 South Swinton 20 2,797 High £2,900 South Walkden 51 2,738 High £2,500 Trinity 31 2,421 Mid/high £2,500 Winton 30 2,716 High £2,900 Worsley 18 2,808 High £2,900 1,109

Schedule of properties - sold from 1 April 2018 to August 2019

Address Price Paid (£) Transaction date

EPC floorspace

m2 £ per sqm Property type

Agecroft1 Banksman Way, Manchester, M27 8WD 210,000 26/07/2019 75 2,800 Terraced

9 Banksman Way, Manchester, M27 8WD 218,000 16/08/2018 88 2,477 Detached18 Virginia Drive, Manchester, M27 8BR 227,995 11/05/2018 94 2,425 Detached20 Virginia Drive, Manchester, M27 8BR 209,995 26/07/2018 106 1,981 Semi-detached22 Virginia Drive, Manchester, M27 8BR 224,995 27/07/2018 115 1,956 Semi-detached23 Virginia Drive, Manchester, M27 8BR 179,995 20/04/2018 70 2,571 Terraced24 Virginia Drive, Manchester, M27 8BR 224,995 27/07/2018 115 1,956 Semi-detached25 Virginia Drive, Manchester, M27 8BR 189,995 26/07/2018 70 2,714 Detached26 Virginia Drive, Manchester, M27 8BR 209,995 27/07/2018 106 1,981 Semi-detached27 Virginia Drive, Manchester, M27 8BR 192,995 28/09/2018 70 2,757 Detached31 Virginia Drive, Manchester, M27 8BR 247,995 30/01/2019 97 2,557 Detached37 Virginia Drive, Manchester, M27 8BR 194,995 10/06/2019 70 2,786 Semi-detached39 Virginia Drive, Manchester, M27 8BR 203,995 31/05/2019 74 2,757 Semi-detached41 Virginia Drive, Manchester, M27 8BR 203,995 28/06/2019 74 2,757 Semi-detached45 Virginia Drive, Manchester, M27 8BR 203,995 28/06/2019 74 2,757 Semi-detached50 Virginia Drive, Manchester, M27 8BR 194,995 21/09/2018 74 2,635 Semi-detached52 Virginia Drive, Manchester, M27 8BR 194,995 21/09/2018 74 2,635 Semi-detached54 Virginia Drive, Manchester, M27 8BR 219,995 05/04/2019 106 2,075 Semi-detached56 Virginia Drive, Manchester, M27 8BR 229,995 29/03/2019 115 2,000 Semi-detached58 Virginia Drive, Manchester, M27 8BR 231,995 17/04/2019 115 2,017 Semi-detached60 Virginia Drive, Manchester, M27 8BR 216,995 26/04/2019 106 2,047 Semi-detached62 Virginia Drive, Manchester, M27 8BR 237,995 26/07/2019 86 2,767 Detached66 Virginia Drive, Manchester, M27 8BR 199,995 18/04/2019 74 2,703 Semi-detached68 Virginia Drive, Manchester, M27 8BR 199,995 12/04/2019 74 2,703 Semi-detached70 Virginia Drive, Manchester, M27 8BR 205,995 17/05/2019 74 2,784 Detached72 Virginia Drive, Manchester, M27 8BR 192,995 24/05/2019 70 2,757 Detached2 Hewer Close, Manchester, M27 8BT 187,995 20/04/2018 74 2,540 Semi-detached6 Hewer Close, Manchester, M27 8BT 208,995 25/05/2018 106 1,972 Semi-detached1 Augustine Drive, Manchester, M27 8BS 244,995 02/08/2019 90 2,722 Detached3 Augustine Drive, Manchester, M27 8BS 272,995 05/07/2019 105 2,600 Detached9 Augustine Drive, Manchester, M27 8BS 229,995 25/01/2019 86 2,674 Detached11 Augustine Drive, Manchester, M27 8BS 264,995 25/01/2019 105 2,524 Detached15 Augustine Drive, Manchester, M27 8BS 244,995 18/01/2019 94 2,606 Detached17 Augustine Drive, Manchester, M27 8BS 264,995 18/01/2019 105 2,524 Detached19 Augustine Drive, Manchester, M27 8BS 264,995 18/01/2019 105 2,524 Detached17 Brattice Drive, Manchester, M27 8WE 243,000 18/07/2019 95 2,558 Detached27 Brattice Drive, Manchester, M27 8WE 225,000 01/02/2019 120 1,875 Terraced29 Brattice Drive, Manchester, M27 8WE 210,000 05/06/2019 101 2,079 Terraced37 Brattice Drive, Manchester, M27 8WE 210,000 02/11/2018 92 2,283 Semi-detached109 Brattice Drive, Manchester, M27 8WE 111,000 14/05/2019 59 1,881 Apartment139 Brattice Drive, Manchester, M27 8WE 107,000 27/02/2019 62 1,726 Apartment

Sample size 41 2425

Mid/high £2,500 per sqm

Barton and Peel GreenApartment 1, Barton Locks, 74 Barton Road, Manchester, M30 7AE 124,000 30/08/2018 64 1,938 ApartmentApartment 2, Barton Locks, 74 Barton Road, Manchester, M30 7AE 116,000 14/06/2019 58 2,000 ApartmentApartment 15, Barton Locks, 74 Barton Road, Manchester, M30 7AE 130,000 17/01/2019 59 2,203 Apartment2 Redmans Close, Manchester, M30 7EL 140,000 14/02/2019 64 2,188 Semi-detached12 Henty Close, Manchester, M30 7ER 175,000 17/10/2018 72 2,431 Semi-detached25 Henty Close, Manchester, M30 7ER 155,000 23/10/2018 64 2,422 Semi-detached9 Ivory Close, Manchester, M30 7FA 162,000 27/07/2018 72 2,250 Terraced32, Regents Court, Verdant Lane, Manchester, M30 7QA 80,000 11/07/2018 54 1,481 Apartment3A Boscombe Avenue, Manchester, M30 7DU 240,000 29/11/2018 120 2,000 Semi-detached34 Boscombe Avenue, Manchester, M30 7DU 200,000 11/02/2019 91 2,198 Semi-detached95 Peel Green Road, Manchester, M30 7DT 200,000 18/04/2019 90 2,222 Semi-detached117 Peel Green Road, Manchester, M30 7DT 177,000 14/12/2018 73 2,425 Semi-detached121 Peel Green Road, Manchester, M30 7DT 183,000 26/10/2018 95 1,926 Semi-detached129 Peel Green Road, Manchester, M30 7DT 171,500 08/08/2018 99 1,732 Semi-detached7 Shaftesbury Avenue, Manchester, M30 7AN 160,000 28/06/2019 91 1,758 Semi-detached16 Shaftesbury Avenue, Manchester, M30 7AN 174,000 05/11/2018 68 2,559 Semi-detached15 Eldon Place, Manchester, M30 8QE 144,000 28/02/2019 65 2,215 DetachedApartment 3, 27 Eldon Place, Manchester, M30 8QE 86,950 02/07/2018 42 2,070 Apartment

Sample size 18 2,151

Mid £2,200 per sqm

Boothstown3 Windmill Rise, Manchester, M28 1FL 203,000 05/04/2019 81 2,506 Semi-detached5 Windmill Rise, Manchester, M28 1FL 190,000 30/11/2018 81 2,346 Terraced1 Malkins Wood Lane, Manchester, M28 1ZQ 263,500 22/03/2019 103 2,558 Semi-detached2 Malkins Wood Lane, Manchester, M28 1ZQ 356,000 18/04/2019 109 3,266 Detached3 Malkins Wood Lane, Manchester, M28 1ZQ 265,000 31/05/2018 103 2,573 Semi-detached45 Malkins Wood Lane, Manchester, M28 1ZQ 266,000 04/06/2019 103 2,583 Semi-detached22 Boothstown Drive, Manchester, M28 1UF 365,000 05/10/2018 96 3,802 Detached29 Boothstown Drive, Manchester, M28 1UF 355,000 13/07/2018 115 3,087 Detached48 Boothstown Drive, Manchester, M28 1UF 225,000 09/11/2018 71 3,169 Semi-detached88 Highclove Lane, Manchester, M28 1GZ 352,995 18/01/2019 105 3,362 Detached90 Highclove Lane, Manchester, M28 1GZ 352,995 18/01/2019 105 3,362 Detached92 Highclove Lane, Manchester, M28 1GZ 469,995 29/03/2019 143 3,287 Detached94 Highclove Lane, Manchester, M28 1GZ 446,496 22/02/2019 143 3,122 Detached


EPC floorspace

m2 £ per sqm Property type 96 Highclove Lane, Manchester, M28 1GZ 422,746 18/02/2019 133 3,179 Detached97 Highclove Lane, Manchester, M28 1GZ 244,995 28/09/2018 72 3,403 Semi-detached103 Highclove Lane, Manchester, M28 1GZ 316,796 11/01/2019 115 2,755 Semi-detached107 Highclove Lane, Manchester, M28 1GZ 389,995 15/02/2019 120 3,250 Detached109 Highclove Lane, Manchester, M28 1GZ 145,548 02/11/2018 93 1,565 Semi-detached121 Highclove Lane, Manchester, M28 1GZ 244,995 11/01/2019 72 3,403 Semi-detached123 Highclove Lane, Manchester, M28 1GZ 309,995 25/01/2019 92 3,370 Detached125 Highclove Lane, Manchester, M28 1GZ 244,995 22/03/2019 71 3,451 Semi-detached3 Wrightson Close, Manchester, M28 1GY 124,548 30/11/2018 72 1,730 Semi-detached


High £2,900 per sqm

Broughton Park 2 Rowan Way, Salford, M7 4EH 117,500 05/12/2018 50 2,350 Apartment19 Topfields Grove, Salford, M7 4DX 267,500 22/10/2018 122 2,193 Terraced2 Broughton Green Square, Salford, M7 2GH 410,000 24/08/2018 286 1,434 Apartment20 Evergreen Mews, Salford, M7 2GU 260,000 23/07/2018 116 2,241 TerracedApartment 11, The Corner, 54 Rigby Street, Salford, M7 4BQ 388,936 01/05/2019 142 2,739 ApartmentApartment 10, The Oaks, 157 – 159 Bury Old Road, Salford, M7 4QW 110,000 18/01/2019 76 1,447 ApartmentApartment 3, The Grange, 70 Waterpark Road, Salford, M7 4GW 336,500 11/04/2018 112 3,004 ApartmentFlat 6, Lakeside Court, Old Hall Road, Salford, M7 4JJ 255,000 29/05/2018 86 2,965 Apartment15 Old Hall Road, Salford, M7 4JJ 375,000 18/09/2018 153 2,451 Semi-detached19 Old Hall Road, Salford, M7 4JJ 755,000 28/05/2019 218 3,463 Detached19 Castleton Road, Salford, M7 4GU 425,000 23/07/2018 123 3,455 Detached52 Upper Park Road, Salford, M7 4JA 470,000 24/07/2018 145 3,241 Semi-detached64A Upper Park Road, Salford, M7 4JA 767,500 08/08/2018 393 1,953 Semi-detached76 Upper Park Road, Salford, M7 4JA 980,000 30/05/2019 432 2,269 Detached86 Upper Park Road, Salford, M7 4JA 650,000 08/11/2018 244 2,664 DetachedFlat 12, Tower Grange, New Hall Road, Salford, M7 4EL 150,000 20/11/2018 62 2,419 ApartmentSample size 16 2,518

Mid/high £2,500 persqm

Cadishead145 Roseway Avenue, Manchester, M44 5GH 203,000 01/07/2019 88 2,307 Terraced155 Roseway Avenue, Manchester, M44 5GH 185,000 01/06/2018 88 2,102 Semi-detached159 Roseway Avenue, Manchester, M44 5GH 225,000 18/03/2019 112 2,009 Terraced167 Roseway Avenue, Manchester, M44 5GH 165,000 10/08/2018 75 2,200 Terraced185 Roseway Avenue, Manchester, M44 5GH 248,000 15/04/2019 114 2,175 Detached191 Roseway Avenue, Manchester, M44 5GH 175,000 31/05/2018 80 2,188 Terraced193 Roseway Avenue, Manchester, M44 5GH 163,000 25/10/2018 75 2,173 Terraced213 Roseway Avenue, Manchester, M44 5GH 181,000 05/07/2019 75 2,413 Terraced231 Roseway Avenue, Manchester, M44 5GH 255,000 15/03/2019 123 2,073 Detached241 Roseway Avenue, Manchester, M44 5GH 198,000 31/08/2018 126 1,571 Terraced253 Roseway Avenue, Manchester, M44 5GH 81,000 28/09/2018 41 1,976 Apartment267 Roseway Avenue, Manchester, M44 5GH 126,000 13/08/2018 67 1,881 Apartment9 Roseway Avenue, Manchester, M44 5GG 261,500 28/08/2018 94 2,782 Detached39 Roseway Avenue, Manchester, M44 5GG 120,000 28/06/2019 58 2,069 Apartment53 Roseway Avenue, Manchester, M44 5GG 183,750 08/08/2018 76 2,418 Terraced71 Roseway Avenue, Manchester, M44 5GG 235,000 24/08/2018 94 2,500 Detached89 Roseway Avenue, Manchester, M44 5GG 153,000 23/05/2018 63 2,429 Terraced113 Roseway Avenue, Manchester, M44 5G 236,000 29/10/2018 94 2,511 Detached14 Roseway Avenue, Manchester, M44 5GJ 280,000 23/11/2018 117 2,393 Detached74 Roseway Avenue, Manchester, M44 5GJ 193,000 14/09/2018 113 1,708 Terraced82 Roseway Avenue, Manchester, M44 5GJ 286,000 26/04/2019 144 1,986 Detached100 Roseway Avenue, Manchester, M44 5GJ 249,999 14/09/2018 123 2,033 Detached7 Daneshill Lane, Manchester, M44 5GN 245,000 18/05/2018 110 2,227 Detached26 Daneshill Lane, Manchester, M44 5GN 201,000 28/03/2019 113 1,779 TerracedSample size 24 2,163

Mid £2,200 per sqm

Chapel Street - outside inner relief route18 St Philips Square, Salford, M3 6FB 355,500 07/09/2018 95 3,742 Terraced19 St Philips Square, Salford, M3 6FB 330,000 27/11/2018 95 3,474 TerracedFlat 23, Old Court House, Encombe Place, Salford, M3 6FJ 239,950 11/01/2019 93 2,580 ApartmentFlat 5, Old Court House, Encombe Place, Salford, M3 6FJ 211,000 02/07/2018 68 3,103 Apartment7 Great George Street, Salford, M3 6EH 280,000 24/04/2018 110 2,545 Terraced62, The Royal, Wilton Place, Salford, M3 6FT 180,500 05/03/2019 69 2,616 Apartment63, The Royal, Wilton Place, Salford, M3 6FT 142,000 01/05/2019 59 2,407 Apartment68, The Royal, Wilton Place, Salford, M3 6FT 236,500 26/06/2018 93 2,543 Apartment10, The Royal, Wilton Place, Salford, M3 6WP 105,000 26/07/2019 37 2,838 Apartment18, The Royal, Wilton Place, Salford, M3 6WP 245,000 22/07/2019 80 3,063 Apartment19, The Royal, Wilton Place, Salford, M3 6WP 252,500 04/09/2019 81 3,117 Apartment47, The Royal, Wilton Place, Salford, M3 6WP 230,000 23/11/2018 84 2,738 Apartment49, The Royal, Wilton Place, Salford, M3 6WP 126,000 01/04/2019 41 3,073 ApartmentApartment 15, Zenith, 365 Chapel Street, Salford, M3 5JT 150,000 05/07/2019 66 2,273 ApartmentApartment 18, Zenith, 365 Chapel Street, Salford, M3 5JT 115,000 08/02/2019 35 3,286 ApartmentApartment 56, Zenith, 365 Chapel Street, Salford, M3 5JT 200,000 31/08/2018 88 2,273 ApartmentApartment 18, Fusion 7, 6 Middlewood Street, Salford, M5 4LH 152,000 18/03/2019 51 2,980 ApartmentApartment 17, Fusion 7, 6 Middlewood Street, Salford, M5 4LH 152,000 21/06/2019 51 2,980 ApartmentApartment 11, Fusion 9, 2 Middlewood Street, Salford, M5 4LH 134,500 31/07/2018 54 2,491 ApartmentApartment 10, Fusion 7, 6 Middlewood Street, Salford, M5 4LH 143,000 28/09/2018 54 2,648 ApartmentApartment 8, Fusion 7, 6 Middlewood Street, Salford, M5 4LH 129,000 10/05/2019 54 2,389 ApartmentApartment 115, Vimto Gardens, Chapel Street, Salford, M3 5JF 230,000 19/02/2019 98 2,347 ApartmentApartment 202, Vimto Gardens, Chapel Street, Salford, M3 5JF 155,000 01/08/2019 49 3,163 ApartmentApartment 204, Vimto Gardens, Chapel Street, Salford, M3 5JF 202,001 07/09/2018 64 3,156 Apartment


EPC floorspace

m2 £ per sqm Property type Apartment 304, Transport House, 1 Crescent, Salford, M5 4JN 144,000 12/04/2019 54 2,667 ApartmentApartment 206, Trinity Edge, 1 St Mary Street, Salford, M3 6BT 150,000 14/01/2019 54 2,778 ApartmentApartment 404, Trinity Edge, 1 St Mary Street, Salford, M3 6BT 149,000 17/01/2019 49 3,041 ApartmentApartment 1, Central Court, Melville Street, Salford, M3 6DH 137,000 05/07/2018 55 2,491 ApartmentApartment 18, Central Court, Melville Street, Salford, M3 6DH 170,000 09/11/2018 71 2,394 Apartment239 Chapel Street, Salford, M3 5EP 128,925 31/08/2018 46 2,803 Apartment7 Lockside Lane, Salford, M5 4YP 178,000 12/04/2019 48 3,708 ApartmentApartment 102, 11 Lockside Lane, Salford, M5 4YP 282,000 24/06/2019 69 4,087 ApartmentApartment 113, 11 Lockside Lane, Salford, M5 4YP 280,000 01/05/2019 72 3,889 ApartmentApartment 114, 11 Lockside Lane, Salford, M5 4YP 177,000 26/10/2018 47 3,766 ApartmentApartment 115, 11 Lockside Lane, Salford, M5 4YP 172,000 26/10/2018 48 3,583 ApartmentApartment 116, 11 Lockside Lane, Salford, M5 4YP 172,000 26/10/2018 48 3,583 ApartmentApartment 117, 11 Lockside Lane, Salford, M5 4YP 175,000 21/06/2019 48 3,646 ApartmentApartment 205, 11 Lockside Lane, Salford, M5 4YP 171,000 10/05/2019 48 3,563 ApartmentApartment 207, 11 Lockside Lane, Salford, M5 4YP 171,000 26/10/2018 48 3,563 ApartmentApartment 214, 11 Lockside Lane, Salford, M5 4YP 173,000 04/01/2019 47 3,681 ApartmentApartment 216, 11 Lockside Lane, Salford, M5 4YP 171,000 07/11/2018 48 3,563 ApartmentApartment 301, 11 Lockside Lane, Salford, M5 4YP 165,000 26/10/2018 48 3,438 ApartmentApartment 302, 11 Lockside Lane, Salford, M5 4YP 177,000 23/11/2018 48 3,688 ApartmentApartment 308, 11 Lockside Lane, Salford, M5 4YP 173,000 29/07/2019 48 3,604 ApartmentApartment 311, 11 Lockside Lane, Salford, M5 4YP 180,000 02/11/2018 48 3,750 ApartmentApartment 314, 11 Lockside Lane, Salford, M5 4YP 290,000 21/06/2019 72 4,028 ApartmentApartment 318, 11 Lockside Lane, Salford, M5 4YP 177,000 06/11/2018 48 3,688 ApartmentApartment 101, 12 Lockside Lane, Salford, M5 4YT 283,000 17/08/2018 70 4,043 ApartmentApartment 107, 12 Lockside Lane, Salford, M5 4YT 278,000 31/08/2018 69 4,029 ApartmentApartment 201, 12 Lockside Lane, Salford, M5 4YT 273,000 28/08/2018 70 3,900 ApartmentApartment 203, 12 Lockside Lane, Salford, M5 4YT 264,000 17/08/2018 69 3,826 ApartmentApartment 206, 12 Lockside Lane, Salford, M5 4YT 272,000 03/12/2018 72 3,778 ApartmentApartment 303, 12 Lockside Lane, Salford, M5 4YT 268,000 10/05/2019 69 3,884 ApartmentApartment 307, 12 Lockside Lane, Salford, M5 4YT 258,000 17/08/2018 69 3,739 ApartmentApartment 403, 12 Lockside Lane, Salford, M5 4YT 268,000 31/08/2018 69 3,884 ApartmentApartment 406, 12 Lockside Lane, Salford, M5 4YT 282,000 25/10/2018 72 3,917 ApartmentApartment 104, 15 Middlewood Street, Salford, M5 4YW 168,000 04/01/2019 48 3,500 ApartmentApartment 106, 15 Middlewood Street, Salford, M5 4YW 170,000 12/10/2018 48 3,542 ApartmentApartment 304, 15 Middlewood Street, Salford, M5 4YW 156,000 10/12/2018 48 3,250 ApartmentApartment 306, 15 Middlewood Street, Salford, M5 4YW 168,000 17/01/2019 48 3,500 ApartmentApartment 402, 15 Middlewood Street, Salford, M5 4YW 256,000 19/07/2019 68 3,765 ApartmentApartment 404, 15 Middlewood Street, Salford, M5 4YW 158,000 11/10/2018 48 3,292 ApartmentApartment 510, 15 Middlewood Street, Salford, M5 4YW 256,000 29/07/2019 70 3,657 ApartmentApartment 601, 15 Middlewood Street, Salford, M5 4YW 258,000 02/08/2019 69 3,739 ApartmentApartment 602, 15 Middlewood Street, Salford, M5 4YW 275,000 28/09/2018 68 4,044 ApartmentApartment 710, 15 Middlewood Street, Salford, M5 4YW 262,325 15/08/2019 70 3,748 ApartmentApartment 1-20, Adelphi Wharf 1, 11 Adelphi Street, Salford, M3 6DZ 175,000 24/05/2019 68 2,574 ApartmentApartment 3-28, Adelphi Wharf 1, 11 Adelphi Street, Salford, M3 6DZ 122,495 16/11/2018 44 2,784 ApartmentApartment 3-29, Adelphi Wharf 1, 11 Adelphi Street, Salford, M3 6DZ 119,995 16/11/2018 38 3,158 ApartmentApartment G-11, Adelphi Wharf 1, 11 Adelphi Street, Salford, M3 6DZ 167,000 18/04/2019 58 2,879 ApartmentApartment 3-19, Adelphi Wharf 1, 11 Adelphi Street, Salford, M3 6DN 165,000 30/04/2019 64 2,578 Apartment

29 Oldfield Road, Salford, M5 4NE 289,950 18/05/2019 95 3,052 Apartment


Premium £3,500 per sqm

Chapel Street - within Inner Relief Route21, The Edge, Clowes Street, Salford, M3 5NB 190,000 16/11/2018 51 3,725 Apartment35, The Edge, Clowes Street, Salford, M3 5NB 230,000 09/04/2018 60 3,833 Apartment38, The Edge, Clowes Street, Salford, M3 5NB 343,000 12/10/2018 103 3,330 Apartment110, The Edge, Clowes Street, Salford, M3 5NE 230,000 27/04/2018 85 2,706 Apartment121, The Edge, Clowes Street, Salford, M3 5NE 198,000 09/04/2018 48 4,125 Apartment168, The Edge, Clowes Street, Salford, M3 5NE 197,000 20/09/2018 52 3,788 Apartment192, The Edge, Clowes Street, Salford, M3 5NF 205,000 11/05/2018 55 3,727 Apartment228, The Edge, Clowes Street, Salford, M3 5NF 540,000 02/10/2018 117 4,615 Apartment240, The Edge, Clowes Street, Salford, M3 5NG 172,050 21/06/2018 55 3,128 ApartmentApartment 1, Block 1 Spectrum, Blackfriars Road, Salford, M3 7BJ 156,000 10/08/2018 48 3,250 ApartmentApartment 32, Block 1 Spectrum, Blackfriars Road, Salford, M3 7BJ 178,000 30/04/2018 67 2,657 ApartmentApartment 33, Block 1 Spectrum, Blackfriars Road, Salford, M3 7BJ 165,000 27/04/2018 48 3,438 ApartmentApartment 46, Block 1 Spectrum, Blackfriars Road, Salford, M3 7BJ 175,000 28/11/2018 76 2,303 ApartmentApartment 128, Block 3 Spectrum, Blackfriars Road, Salford, M3 7BP 220,000 16/11/2018 62 3,548 ApartmentApartment 65, Block 3 Spectrum, Blackfriars Road, Salford, M3 7BP 125,000 07/12/2018 41 3,049 ApartmentApartment 70, Block 3 Spectrum, Blackfriars Road, Salford, M3 7BP 153,500 09/11/2018 45 3,411 ApartmentApartment 71, Block 3 Spectrum, Blackfriars Road, Salford, M3 7BP 135,000 12/04/2019 29 4,655 ApartmentApartment 72, Block 3 Spectrum, Blackfriars Road, Salford, M3 7BP 160,000 04/09/2018 43 3,721 ApartmentApartment 73, Block 3 Spectrum, Blackfriars Road, Salford, M3 7BP 127,000 22/10/2018 28 4,536 ApartmentApartment 82, Block 3 Spectrum, Blackfriars Road, Salford, M3 7BP 220,000 21/01/2019 67 3,284 ApartmentApartment 83, Block 3 Spectrum, Blackfriars Road, Salford, M3 7BP 129,000 11/05/2018 28 4,607 ApartmentApartment 193, Block 5 Spectrum, Blackfriars Road, Salford, M3 7BT 173,500 21/09/2018 44 3,943 ApartmentApartment 207, Block 5 Spectrum, Blackfriars Road, Salford, M3 7BT 159,950 25/02/2019 35 4,570 ApartmentApartment 225, Block 5 Spectrum, Blackfriars Road, Salford, M3 7BT 170,000 29/09/2018 44 3,864 ApartmentApartment 232, Block 5 Spectrum, Blackfriars Road, Salford, M3 7BT 215,000 02/05/2019 55 3,909 ApartmentApartment 233, Block 5 Spectrum, Blackfriars Road, Salford, M3 7BT 210,000 05/09/2018 66 3,182 ApartmentApartment 241, Block 5 Spectrum, Blackfriars Road, Salford, M3 7BT 145,000 16/01/2019 30 4,833 ApartmentApartment 252, Block 5 Spectrum, Blackfriars Road, Salford, M3 7BT 146,000 20/05/2019 47 3,106 ApartmentApartment 276, Block 5 Spectrum, Blackfriars Road, Salford, M3 7BT 216,500 15/06/2018 28 7,732 ApartmentApartment 295, Block 5 Spectrum, Blackfriars Road, Salford, M3 7BU 165,000 30/11/2018 45 3,667 ApartmentApartment 302, Block 5 Spectrum, Blackfriars Road, Salford, M3 7BU 123,000 10/08/2018 28 4,393 ApartmentApartment 321, Block 5 Spectrum, Blackfriars Road, Salford, M3 7BU 176,500 05/04/2018 58 3,043 Apartment


EPC floorspace

m2 £ per sqm Property type Apartment 326, Block 5 Spectrum, Blackfriars Road, Salford, M3 7BU 127,000 11/09/2018 29 4,379 ApartmentApartment 13, Block B Alto, Sillavan Way, Salford, M3 6GB 169,950 14/12/2018 71 2,394 ApartmentApartment 20, Block B Alto, Sillavan Way, Salford, M3 6GB 195,000 19/10/2018 71 2,746 ApartmentApartment 39, Block B Alto, Sillavan Way, Salford, M3 6GB 230,000 29/06/2018 45 5,111 ApartmentApartment 59, Block B Alto, Sillavan Way, Salford, M3 6GB 289,000 11/05/2018 60 4,817 ApartmentApartment 62, Block B Alto, Sillavan Way, Salford, M3 6GB 245,000 28/09/2018 71 3,451 ApartmentApartment 15, Block C Alto, Sillavan Way, Salford, M3 6GD 190,000 20/12/2018 66 2,879 ApartmentApartment 18, Block C Alto, Sillavan Way, Salford, M3 6GD 200,000 21/12/2018 64 3,125 ApartmentApartment 3, Block C Alto, Sillavan Way, Salford, M3 6GD 230,000 25/01/2019 86 2,674 ApartmentApartment 43, Block C Alto, Sillavan Way, Salford, M3 6GD 240,000 29/10/2018 61 3,934 ApartmentApartment 47, Block C Alto, Sillavan Way, Salford, M3 6GD 191,000 27/07/2018 66 2,894 ApartmentApartment 7, Block D Alto, Sillavan Way, Salford, M3 6GF 274,309 04/06/2018 85 3,227 ApartmentApartment 78, Block D Alto, Sillavan Way, Salford, M3 6GF 417,500 15/02/2019 131 3,187 ApartmentApartment 79, Block D Alto, Sillavan Way, Salford, M3 6GF 207,900 26/07/2019 61 3,408 ApartmentApartment 26, City Point, 156 Chapel Street, Salford, M3 6ES 145,000 11/09/2018 65 2,231 ApartmentApartment 44, City Point, 156 Chapel Street, Salford, M3 6ES 108,500 28/11/2018 74 1,466 ApartmentApartment 55, City Point, 156 Chapel Street, Salford, M3 6ES 182,000 29/01/2019 63 2,889 ApartmentApartment 65, City Point, 156 Chapel Street, Salford, M3 6ES 160,000 26/10/2018 54 2,963 ApartmentApartment 152, City Point, 156 Chapel Street, Salford, M3 6EU 181,000 05/04/2018 56 3,232 ApartmentApartment 195, City Point, 156 Chapel Street, Salford, M3 6EU 177,500 08/06/2018 70 2,536 ApartmentFlat 102, City Point, 156 Chapel Street, Salford, M3 6ET 135,000 09/11/2018 52 2,596 ApartmentFlat 117, City Point, 156 Chapel Street, Salford, M3 6ET 150,500 27/03/2019 70 2,150 ApartmentFlat 139, City Point, 156 Chapel Street, Salford, M3 6ET 130,000 20/12/2018 52 2,500 ApartmentFlat 92, City Point, 156 Chapel Street, Salford, M3 6ET 150,000 04/05/2018 44 3,409 ApartmentApartment 125, Abito, 85 Greengate, Salford, M3 7NB 101,000 20/04/2018 34 2,971 ApartmentApartment 126, Abito, 85 Greengate, Salford, M3 7NB 101,500 27/06/2018 32 3,172 ApartmentApartment 201, Abito, 85 Greengate, Salford, M3 7NB 140,000 26/07/2019 60 2,333 ApartmentApartment 208, Abito, 85 Greengate, Salford, M3 7NB 112,500 05/08/2019 33 3,409 ApartmentApartment 215, Abito, 85 Greengate, Salford, M3 7NB 110,000 02/08/2019 26 4,231 ApartmentApartment 228, Abito, 85 Greengate, Salford, M3 7NB 105,000 23/11/2018 31 3,387 ApartmentApartment 309, Abito, 85 Greengate, Salford, M3 7NB 110,000 08/04/2019 79 1,392 ApartmentApartment 312, Abito, 85 Greengate, Salford, M3 7NB 105,000 05/09/2019 28 3,750 ApartmentApartment 403, Abito, 85 Greengate, Salford, M3 7ND 102,000 09/11/2018 32 3,188 ApartmentApartment 509, Abito, 85 Greengate, Salford, M3 7ND 110,000 24/08/2018 32 3,438 ApartmentApartment 513, Abito, 85 Greengate, Salford, M3 7ND 138,500 18/05/2018 53 2,613 ApartmentApartment 529, Abito, 85 Greengate, Salford, M3 7ND 110,000 20/08/2018 33 3,333 ApartmentApartment 607, Abito, 85 Greengate, Salford, M3 7ND 112,000 09/04/2019 31 3,613 ApartmentApartment 632, Abito, 85 Greengate, Salford, M3 7ND 120,000 11/06/2018 33 3,636 ApartmentApartment 124, Quebec Building, Bury Street, Salford, M3 7DU 130,000 26/04/2019 41 3,171 ApartmentApartment 228, Quebec Building, Bury Street, Salford, M3 7DU 167,500 28/08/2019 64 2,617 ApartmentApartment 229, Quebec Building, Bury Street, Salford, M3 7DU 193,500 08/06/2018 69 2,804 ApartmentApartment 324, Quebec Building, Bury Street, Salford, M3 7DU 116,000 19/09/2018 40 2,900 ApartmentApartment 10, Quebec Building, Bury Street, Salford, M3 7DX 117,500 12/10/2018 45 2,611 ApartmentApartment 108, Quebec Building, Bury Street, Salford, M3 7DX 136,000 30/11/2018 38 3,579 ApartmentApartment 112, Quebec Building, Bury Street, Salford, M3 7DX 136,000 24/08/2018 39 3,487 ApartmentApartment 113, Quebec Building, Bury Street, Salford, M3 7DX 130,000 12/11/2018 43 3,023 ApartmentApartment 210, Quebec Building, Bury Street, Salford, M3 7DX 144,000 17/12/2018 42 3,429 ApartmentApartment 214, Quebec Building, Bury Street, Salford, M3 7DX 137,000 01/02/2019 51 2,686 ApartmentApartment 9, Quebec Building, Bury Street, Salford, M3 7DX 125,000 30/11/2018 44 2,841 Apartment1002, The Bridge, 40 Dearmans Place, Salford, M3 5EW 192,500 21/09/2018 50 3,850 Apartment401, The Bridge, 40 Dearmans Place, Salford, M3 5EW 170,000 29/06/2018 55 3,091 Apartment404, The Bridge, 40 Dearmans Place, Salford, M3 5EW 229,500 11/05/2018 72 3,188 Apartment505, The Bridge, 40 Dearmans Place, Salford, M3 5EW 258,000 17/10/2018 73 3,534 Apartment902, The Bridge, 40 Dearmans Place, Salford, M3 5EW 185,000 31/01/2019 54 3,426 Apartment903, The Bridge, 40 Dearmans Place, Salford, M3 5EW 260,000 25/04/2019 71 3,662 Apartment904, The Bridge, 40 Dearmans Place, Salford, M3 5EW 260,000 17/05/2019 72 3,611 ApartmentApartment 28, The Bayley, 21 New Bailey Street, Salford, M3 5AX 142,500 08/03/2019 49 2,908 ApartmentApartment 40, The Bayley, 21 New Bailey Street, Salford, M3 5AX 180,000 14/09/2018 57 3,158 ApartmentApartment 42, The Bayley, 21 New Bailey Street, Salford, M3 5AX 135,000 13/04/2018 38 3,553 ApartmentApartment 5, The Bayley, 21 New Bailey Street, Salford, M3 5AX 128,000 17/05/2018 41 3,122 ApartmentApartment 1315, City Suites, 16 Chapel Street, Salford, M3 7NH 276,348 06/06/2018 40 6,909 ApartmentApartment 1515, City Suites, 16 Chapel Street, Salford, M3 7NH 263,000 30/11/2018 40 6,575 ApartmentApartment 414, City Suites, 16 Chapel Street, Salford, M3 7NH 222,320 09/10/2018 35 6,352 ApartmentApartment 717, City Suites, 16 Chapel Street, Salford, M3 7NH 220,000 25/01/2019 41 5,366 ApartmentApartment 204, Barnfield House, 1 Salford Approach, Salford, M3 7BX 237,000 01/07/2019 93 2,548 ApartmentApartment 302, Barnfield House, 1 Salford Approach, Salford, M3 7BX 190,000 29/03/2019 71 2,676 ApartmentApartment 406, Barnfield House, 1 Salford Approach, Salford, M3 7BX 133,500 30/08/2018 54 2,472 ApartmentSample size 99 3,470

Premium £3,500 per m2

Charlestown2 Blossom Way, Salford, M6 6HX 192,995 22/02/2019 80 2,412 Semi-Detached3 Blossom Way, Salford, M6 6HX 166,995 30/04/2019 61 2,738 Semi-Detached4 Blossom Way, Salford, M6 6HX 192,995 17/05/2019 79 2,443 Terraced5 Blossom Way, Salford, M6 6HX 166,995 30/04/2019 61 2,738 Semi-Detached6 Blossom Way, Salford, M6 6HX 192,995 17/05/2019 79 2,443 Apartment7 Blossom Way, Salford, M6 6HX 192,995 13/05/2019 79 2,443 Terraced8 Blossom Way, Salford, M6 6HX 167,995 31/05/2019 60 2,800 Terraced9 Blossom Way, Salford, M6 6HX 192,995 31/05/2019 79 2,443 Semi-Detached11 Blossom Way, Salford, M6 6HX 217,995 05/07/2019 107 2,037 Apartment15 Blossom Way, Salford, M6 6HX 221,995 12/07/2019 107 2,075 Apartment45 Blossom Way, Salford, M6 6HX 176,995 31/08/2018 80 2,212 Terraced49 Blossom Way, Salford, M6 6HX 171,995 31/08/2018 77 2,234 Terraced57 Blossom Way, Salford, M6 6HX 174,995 25/05/2018 80 2,187 Semi-Detached2 Levens Street, Salford, M6 6DY 174,995 28/02/2019 61 2,869 Semi-Detached6 Levens Street, Salford, M6 6DY 156,995 28/02/2019 61 2,574 Terraced


EPC floorspace

m2 £ per sqm Property type 8 Levens Street, Salford, M6 6DY 156,995 21/06/2019 61 2,574 Apartment12 Levens Street, Salford, M6 6DY 161,995 31/01/2019 61 2,656 Semi-Detached16 Levens Street, Salford, M6 6DY 179,995 27/03/2019 77 2,338 Semi-Detached26 Levens Street, Salford, M6 6DY 151,995 29/03/2019 60 2,533 Terraced22 Park View Road, Salford, M6 6GY 156,995 28/09/2018 61 2,574 Terraced1 Hope Road, Salford, M6 6HU 159,995 22/02/2019 60 2,667 Semi-Detached3 Hope Road, Salford, M6 6HU 182,995 25/03/2019 77 2,377 Terraced5 Hope Road, Salford, M6 6HU 156,995 22/03/2019 61 2,574 Detached6 Hope Road, Salford, M6 6HU 206,995 26/07/2019 61 3,393 Semi-Detached7 Hope Road, Salford, M6 6HU 156,995 18/04/2019 61 2,574 Terraced9 Hope Road, Salford, M6 6HU 182,995 28/02/2019 77 2,377 Terraced11 Hope Road, Salford, M6 6HU 158,995 19/03/2019 77 2,065 Terraced13 Hope Road, Salford, M6 6HU 158,995 19/03/2019 61 2,606 Terraced17 Hope Road, Salford, M6 6HU 185,995 28/02/2019 77 2,416 Terraced19 Hope Road, Salford, M6 6HU 161,995 29/03/2019 60 2,700 Semi-Detached23 Hope Road, Salford, M6 6HU 214,995 28/06/2019 107 2,009 Semi-Detached27 Hope Road, Salford, M6 6HU 178,995 25/06/2019 60 2,983 Semi-Detached29 Hope Road, Salford, M6 6HU 206,995 21/06/2019 80 2,587 Semi-Detached39 Hope Road, Salford, M6 6HU 197,995 31/05/2019 80 2,475 Semi-DetachedSample size 34 2,504

Mid/high £2,500 per m2

Claremont2 Scholars Avenue, Salford, M6 8GB 249,995 28/06/2018 90 2,778 Detached3 Scholars Avenue, Salford, M6 8GB 249,995 28/06/2018 90 2,778 Detached4 Scholars Avenue, Salford, M6 8GB 254,995 25/10/2018 90 2,833 Detached6 Scholars Avenue, Salford, M6 8GB 254,995 11/01/2019 115 2,217 Semi-detached7 Scholars Avenue, Salford, M6 8GB 218,995 20/07/2018 72 3,042 Semi-detached10 Scholars Avenue, Salford, M6 8GB 274,995 20/12/2018 94 2,925 Detached11 Scholars Avenue, Salford, M6 8GB 249,995 31/10/2018 115 2,174 Semi-detached12 Scholars Avenue, Salford, M6 8GB 244,995 05/04/2019 76 3,224 Semi-detached14 Scholars Avenue, Salford, M6 8GB 244,995 12/04/2019 76 3,224 Semi-detached15 Scholars Avenue, Salford, M6 8GB 229,995 23/11/2018 106 2,170 Semi-detached16 Scholars Avenue, Salford, M6 8GB 269,995 21/06/2019 90 3,000 Detached18 Scholars Avenue, Salford, M6 8GB 279,995 07/06/2019 94 2,979 Detached20 Scholars Avenue, Salford, M6 8GB 234,995 07/06/2019 72 3,264 Semi-detached21 Scholars Avenue, Salford, M6 8GB 229,995 15/03/2019 72 3,194 Semi-detached22 Scholars Avenue, Salford, M6 8GB 234,995 28/06/2019 72 3,264 Semi-detached23 Scholars Avenue, Salford, M6 8GB 229,995 11/01/2019 72 3,194 Semi-detached25 Scholars Avenue, Salford, M6 8GB 259,995 17/05/2019 115 2,261 Semi-detached26 Scholars Avenue, Salford, M6 8GB 237,995 26/07/2019 72 3,305 Semi-detached27 Scholars Avenue, Salford, M6 8GB 239,995 17/05/2019 106 2,264 Semi-detached28 Scholars Avenue, Salford, M6 8GB 247,995 12/07/2019 76 3,263 Apartments29 Scholars Avenue, Salford, M6 8GB 303,995 01/08/2019 105 2,895 Detached30 Scholars Avenue, Salford, M6 8GB 247,995 12/07/2019 76 3,263 Semi-detached59 Scholars Avenue, Salford, M6 8GB 249,995 19/07/2019 76 3,289 Semi-detached61 Scholars Avenue, Salford, M6 8GB 249,995 12/07/2019 76 3,289 Apartments63 Scholars Avenue, Salford, M6 8GB 269,995 19/07/2019 90 3,000 Apartments4 Wordsmith Drive, Salford, M6 8GE 277,995 05/10/2018 129 2,155 Semi-detached5 Wordsmith Drive, Salford, M6 8GE 277,995 28/09/2018 129 2,155 Semi-detached6 Wordsmith Drive, Salford, M6 8GE 272,995 21/09/2018 129 2,116 Semi-detached1 Principle Close, Salford, M6 8GD 234,995 11/01/2019 106 2,217 Semi-detached2 Principle Close, Salford, M6 8GD 279,995 21/06/2019 94 2,979 Detached3 Principle Close, Salford, M6 8GD 254,995 25/01/2019 115 2,217 Semi-detached4 Principle Close, Salford, M6 8GD 234,995 09/01/2019 106 2,217 Semi-detached6 Principle Close, Salford, M6 8GD 282,995 23/11/2018 129 2,194 Semi-detached9 Principle Close, Salford, M6 8GD 261,995 26/10/2018 94 2,787 Detached65 Chaplin Close, Salford, M6 8FW 111,000 16/05/2019 49 2,265 Apartments1 Keaton Close, Salford, M6 8EB 269,000 04/05/2018 110 2,445 Detached38 Park Lane, Salford, M6 7RQ 225,000 14/03/2019 102 2,206 TerracedFlat 10, Chaseley Field Mansions, 21 Chaseley Road, Salford, M6 7DZ 230,000 15/02/2019 84 2,738 ApartmentsSample size 38 2,731


Eccles11 Cassidy Way, Manchester, M30 8EQ 248,500 31/10/2018 86 2,890 Detached48 Cassidy Way, Manchester, M30 8EQ 309,995 01/08/2019 105 2,952 Detached60 Cassidy Way, Manchester, M30 8EQ 304,995 16/08/2019 105 2,905 Detached62 Cassidy Way, Manchester, M30 8EQ 304,995 02/08/2019 105 2,905 Detached1 Handyside Close, Manchester, M30 8EX 219,995 26/07/2018 74 2,973 Semi-detached2 Handyside Close, Manchester, M30 8EX 219,995 17/08/2018 74 2,973 Semi-detached4 Handyside Close, Manchester, M30 8EX 219,995 28/09/2018 74 2,973 Semi-detached7 Handyside Close, Manchester, M30 8EX 209,995 29/10/2018 70 3,000 Detached8 Handyside Close, Manchester, M30 8EX 212,995 14/12/2018 70 3,043 Semi-detached9 Handyside Close, Manchester, M30 8EX 209,995 19/10/2018 74 2,838 Semi-detached12 Handyside Close, Manchester, M30 8EX 254,995 30/11/2018 86 2,965 Detached16 Handyside Close, Manchester, M30 8EX 215,995 30/11/2018 74 2,919 Semi-detached18 Handyside Close, Manchester, M30 8EX 249,995 07/12/2018 115 2,174 Semi-detached21 Handyside Close, Manchester, M30 8EX 209,995 28/09/2018 74 2,838 Semi-detached35 Cassidy Way, Manchester, M30 8EQ 219,995 19/07/2019 70 3,143 Semi-detached37 Cassidy Way, Manchester, M30 8EQ 224,995 21/06/2019 74 3,040 Terraced39 Cassidy Way, Manchester, M30 8EQ 224,995 27/06/2019 74 3,040 Semi-detached41 Cassidy Way, Manchester, M30 8EQ 224,995 17/06/2019 74 3,040 Semi-detached43 Cassidy Way, Manchester, M30 8EQ 219,995 24/04/2019 70 3,143 Semi-detached66 Cassidy Way, Manchester, M30 8EQ 219,995 31/05/2019 70 3,143 Detached


EPC floorspace

m2 £ per sqm Property type 22 Pembroke Avenue, Manchester, M30 0GN 150,000 16/04/2018 91 1,648 Terraced24 Pembroke Avenue, Manchester, M30 0GN 177,000 19/04/2018 96 1,844 Semi-detached14 Ernest Avenue, Manchester, M30 8EU 297,995 25/01/2019 94 3,170 Detached12 Ernest Avenue, Manchester, M30 8EU 279,995 14/12/2018 94 2,979 Detached27 Ernest Avenue, Manchester, M30 8EU 284,995 11/01/2019 105 2,714 Detached35 Ernest Avenue, Manchester, M30 8EU 221,995 15/03/2019 74 3,000 Semi-detached37 Ernest Avenue, Manchester, M30 8EU 299,995 17/05/2019 105 2,857 Detached39 Ernest Avenue, Manchester, M30 8EU 280,995 23/05/2019 94 2,989 Detached20 Newry Road, Manchester, M30 0LD 145,000 11/03/2019 57 2,544 Semi-detached61 Waterslea, Manchester, M30 0SR 146,007 24/08/2018 81 1,803 Terraced32 Cassidy Way, Manchester, M30 8EQ 195,000 18/04/2019 67 2,910 Semi-detachedSample size 31 2,818


Eccles New Road2007, City Link, Hessel Street, Salford, M50 1DB 86,000 21/11/2018 43 2,000 Apartment2004, City Link, Hessel Street, Salford, M50 1DB 100,000 05/04/2018 43 2,326 Apartment2409, City Link, Hessel Street, Salford, M50 1DB 85,000 23/06/2018 49 1,735 ApartmentFlat 16, Friars Court, Canterbury Gardens, Salford, M5 5AH 71,500 13/03/2019 56 1,277 ApartmentFlat 36, Friars Court, Canterbury Gardens, Salford, M5 5AH 97,000 12/10/2018 62 1,565 ApartmentFlat 6, Riddell Court, Sheader Drive, Salford, M5 5BW 90,000 06/04/2018 55 1,636 ApartmentFlat 11, Wileman Court, Sheader Drive, Salford, M5 5BU 98,000 20/03/2019 53 1,849 ApartmentFlat 22, Wileman Court, Sheader Drive, Salford, M5 5BU 110,000 07/12/2018 55 2,000 ApartmentFlat 6, Wileman Court, Sheader Drive, Salford, M5 5BU 90,000 30/11/2018 54 1,667 Apartment17 Little Bolton Terrace, Salford, M5 5BD 102,000 08/06/2018 53 1,925 Apartment37 Little Bolton Terrace, Salford, M5 5BD 100,000 13/12/2018 53 1,887 Apartment42 Little Bolton Terrace, Salford, M5 5BD 110,000 27/07/2018 51 2,157 Apartment59 Little Bolton Terrace, Salford, M5 5BD 114,500 09/11/2018 80 1,431 Apartment64 Little Bolton Terrace, Salford, M5 5BD 100,000 11/04/2019 56 1,786 ApartmentApartment 38, Ladywell Point, Pilgrims Way, Salford, M50 1AU 117,500 31/08/2018 68 1,728 ApartmentApartment 45, Ladywell Point, Pilgrims Way, Salford, M50 1AU 115,000 08/04/2019 60 1,917 ApartmentApartment 56, Ladywell Point, Pilgrims Way, Salford, M50 1AU 114,000 09/11/2018 62 1,839 ApartmentApartment 63, Ladywell Point, Pilgrims Way, Salford, M50 1AU 116,000 31/08/2018 60 1,933 ApartmentApartment 70, Ladywell Point, Pilgrims Way, Salford, M50 1AU 118,000 09/05/2018 60 1,967 ApartmentApartment 78, Ladywell Point, Pilgrims Way, Salford, M50 1AU 101,450 23/05/2018 59 1,719 ApartmentApartment 80, Ladywell Point, Pilgrims Way, Salford, M50 1AU 117,500 28/08/2019 60 1,958 ApartmentApartment 82, Ladywell Point, Pilgrims Way, Salford, M50 1AU 123,500 07/09/2018 66 1,871 ApartmentApartment 91, Ladywell Point, Pilgrims Way, Salford, M50 1AU 119,000 23/08/2019 58 2,052 ApartmentApartment 92, Ladywell Point, Pilgrims Way, Salford, M50 1AU 145,000 20/11/2018 79 1,835 ApartmentApartment 100, Ladywell Point, Pilgrims Way, Salford, M50 1AW 99,450 14/05/2018 59 1,686 ApartmentApartment 133, Ladywell Point, Pilgrims Way, Salford, M50 1AW 108,000 19/07/2019 59 1,831 ApartmentApartment 162, Ladywell Point, Pilgrims Way, Salford, M50 1AW 109,500 28/09/2018 64 1,711 ApartmentApartment 94, Ladywell Point, Pilgrims Way, Salford, M50 1AW 115,000 18/04/2019 64 1,797 Apartment26 Sugar Mill Square, Salford, M5 5EB 90,000 20/12/2018 54 1,667 Apartment55 Sugar Mill Square, Salford, M5 5EB 92,000 23/07/2019 54 1,704 Apartment38 Sugar Mill Square, Salford, M5 5EB 78,000 29/06/2019 55 1,418 ApartmentSample size 31 1,802

Low £1,800 per sqm

Ellesmere Park and Monton4 Godolphin Close, Manchester, M30 9EW 148,000 14/09/2018 64 2,313 Apartment12 Godolphin Close, Manchester, M30 9EW 153,000 13/06/2018 68 2,250 Apartment27 Godolphin Close, Manchester, M30 9EW 500,000 12/04/2019 176 2,841 Detached18 Ellesmere Green, Manchester, M30 9EZ 155,000 15/06/2018 67 2,313 Apartment48 Ellesmere Green, Manchester, M30 9EZ 145,000 27/07/2018 39 3,718 Apartment56 Ellesmere Green, Manchester, M30 9EZ 142,000 23/08/2019 84 1,690 Apartment79 Ellesmere Green, Manchester, M30 9EZ 203,500 06/07/2018 70 2,907 Apartment1 Wakes Drive, Manchester, M30 9NR 290,000 10/08/2018 110 2,636 Semi-detachedApartment 19, Dukes Court, 79 Wellington Road, Manchester, M30 9GW 120,000 18/06/2018 53 2,264 ApartmentFlat 14, Westcliffe, 94 Wellington Road, Manchester, M30 9GW 125,000 07/02/2019 50 2,500 Apartment14 Stafford Road, Manchester, M30 9HW 800,000 28/09/2018 230 3,478 Detached21 Merrydale Avenue, Manchester, M30 9DS 260,000 23/04/2018 114 2,281 Detached24 Merrydale Avenue, Manchester, M30 9DS 245,000 14/12/2018 66 3,712 Semi-detachedApartment 1, Wendover Court, 116 – 118 Monton Road, Manchester, M30 9HG 150,000 31/12/2018 44 3,409 ApartmentApartment 19, Wendover Court, 116 – 118 Monton Road, Manchester, M30 9HG 230,000 15/02/2019 71 3,239 ApartmentApartment 25, Wendover Court, 116 – 118 Monton Road, Manchester, M30 9H 177,500 15/08/2018 50 3,550 Apartment2 Corbel Way, Manchester, M30 9GH 235,000 08/03/2019 99 2,374 Terraced21 Corbel Way, Manchester, M30 9GH 150,000 14/12/2018 51 2,941 Apartment33 Corbel Way, Manchester, M30 9GH 132,000 04/05/2018 51 2,588 Apartment4 Greenwood Place, Manchester, M30 9EX 326,000 23/01/2019 127 2,567 Detached45 Cavendish Road, Manchester, M30 9EE 450,000 06/06/2018 168 2,679 Detached21 Chorlton Brook, Manchester, M30 9NP 450,000 16/05/2018 146 3,082 DetachedApartment 17, 30 Clifton Road, Manchester, M30 9GG 145,000 11/08/2018 54 2,685 ApartmentApartment 11, 30 Clifton Road, Manchester, M30 9GG 145,000 27/07/2018 54 2,685 ApartmentApartment 10, Clifton House, 32 Clifton Road, Manchester, M30 9GG 140,000 10/05/2019 55 2,545 Apartment44 Clifton Road, Manchester, M30 9GG 260,000 13/04/2018 96 2,708 Semi-detachedSample size 26 2,768


Higher BroughtonApartment 5, 226 Great Clowes Street, Salford, M7 2ZS 150,000 03/04/2019 64 2,344 Apartment7 Carnarvon Street, Salford, M7 4QH 285,000 03/12/2018 97 2,938 Semi-detached9 Bugle Close, Salford, M7 2GP 185,000 20/05/2019 79 2,342 Semi-detached18 Bugle Close, Salford, M7 2GP 165,000 03/05/2019 60 2,750 Terraced

publication salford local plan: development management ... · road salford m7 2la 0.23 148 34 3 8...

Documents