Wakefield Council Local Plan Viability Evidence Base

1

Wakefield Council Local Plan Viability Evidence Base

Prepared for:

Wakefield Council

Date: December 2019

Project Ref: 1912UM00

Cushman & Wakefield | Wakefield Council Date: December 2019 Project Ref: 1912UM00

Table of Contents Wakefield Council Local Plan Viability Evidence Base

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents ............................................................................................ 2

1. Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ 3

2. Financial Viability in Planning: Conduct and Reporting (1st Edition, May 2019) – RICS Professional Statement ............................................................................................................. 6

3. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 8

4. The Requirement for Viability Evidence .......................................................................... 9

5. Methodology for Preparing Local Plan Viability Evidence ............................................ 13

6. Review of Draft Local Plan Policies and Sites .............................................................. 16

7. Financial Viability Assessment – appraisal assumptions ............................................. 30

8. Area Wide Viability Assessment - Results .................................................................... 45

9. Strategic Sites Financial Viability Assessment ............................................................. 54

10. Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................ 59

11. Disclaimer ..................................................................................................................... 61

Appendix 1: Attendees at Stakeholder consultation event June 2019 ........... 62

Appendix 2: Questionnaire Survey ................................................................ 64

Appendix 3: Key Variances in responses from consultees to viability

assumptions .................................................................................................. 65

Appendix 4: Strategic Site Development Appraisal Assumptions .................. 66

Appendix 5: Strategic Site Development Appraisals ..................................... 67

Appendix 6: Bentley Project Management Cost Plan .................................... 68

Appendix 7: Bentley Project Management Strategic Site Assessments ........ 69

Appendix 8: Terms of Engagement ............................................................... 70



3

1. Executive Summary

1.1. The RICS Professional Statement Financial Viability in Planning – Conduct and Reporting (1st

Edition, May 2019) states that all financial viability assessments (FVAs) must be accompanied by

non-technical summaries to assist non-specialists in better understanding the report.

1.2. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) for Viability (July 2018, updated May 2019) also states

that an executive summary of a FVA is to be made publicly available to promote greater

transparency and accountability within the viability assessment process.

1.3. Accordingly, an executive summary has been prepared to present the findings of this viability

assessment in a clear and concise manner.

Scope of Instructions

1.4. Cushman & Wakefield were commissioned by Wakefield Council in April 2019 to produce a

viability assessment of the Council’s emerging Local Plan 2036. The purpose of the assessment

was to test the viability of emerging policies on sites that are proposed to be allocated to provide

feedback and advice to the Council in shaping the Local Plan.

Local Plan Policies

1.5. A screening exercise was produced to determine the policy areas that were considered would

have a direct, tangible and generically measurable cost impact on development viability. These

are summarised as follows:

• Affordable housing

• Renewable energy standards

• Accessible housing standards

• Electric charging points

• Density standards

• Housing size standards

• Community Infrastructure

• S106 obligations

1.6. Estimates were made of the cost impacts of each of these policies which were then modelled

through a viability assessment

Methodology

1.7. The District was divided into four Value Areas (see below) that represented the differing market

strength across the area as represented by the varying new build revenues achievable. A site

sampling methodology was carried out that identified 12 hypothetical development schemes

based on review of site allocations and emerging scheme proposals. These were then modelled

through an area wide viability appraisal assessment in each of the four value areas thus producing

48 scheme appraisals in total.

1.8. 9 large scale / strategic site allocations were also sampled for individual appraisal to reinforce /

cross check the findings of the area wide modelling and test the deliverability of those larger sites.



4

1.9. For both the area wide model and strategic site viability testing, the methodology closely followed

National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG). Appraisals were based on a residual cashflow

model whereby all development costs, policy standards, finance and developer’s profit are

deducted from Gross Development Value to determine a residual land value (RLV) that is

compared against a benchmark land value (BLV) to determine viability.

1.10. All the appraisal assumptions were thoroughly researched and also followed consultation and

submissions by site promoters.

Key findings

1.11. The assessment concluded that development schemes can withstand the majority of planning

policy standards in all areas of the District with the exception of affordable housing levels which

has the biggest impact of all the policy standards on development viability. It is clear that not all

parts of the District can viably withstand an affordable housing level of 30% when set alongside

the other policy standards and expectations for continuing with at least current CIL tariff rates.

This reflects the reality of experience in recent years with an average affordable housing level of

circa 20% being achieved despite the pre-existing policy set at a target rate of 30%, with a range

of precedents from 0% to 30% being accepted on viability grounds according to the individual

circumstances of sites.

1.12. In view of the recent changes to national planning policy as documented in the NPPF and NPPG

which indicate a move away from unachievable ‘target’ rates, it is recommended that the Council

should move towards setting variable rates of affordable housing requirements across the District

which align with the evidence base documented.

Policy Scenarios

1.13. As a result of the above, the following affordable housing policy scenarios have been

recommended for consideration which allow all other identified development costs and policy

standards to be viable.



5

1.14. Whilst Policy Scenario 2 is favourable from the perspective of maximising affordable housing,

consideration is required to not only the deliverability of CIL alongside affordable housing (in Value

Area 3, the average CIL headroom of £19 psm indicates that some schemes would be unviable

at the current CIL charging rate of £20 psm) but also the sensitivities relating to possible variation

to key appraisal inputs, in particular site development costs and abnormals. The sampling of

actual sites and the commissioning of bespoke site infrastructure and abnormal cost plans has

underlined the risks around viability within the mid and lower value locations across Wakefield.

1.15. Policy Scenario 1 should be interpreted as a ‘safer’ position that would ensure greater level of

resilience of the policy against the need for frequent individual exceptions to be considered

through the Development Management process. This scenario could also enable a higher level

of CIL to be charged than under the current Wakefield CIL Charging Schedule.

1.16. It should be noted that, as outlined in the NPPF, there may be some circumstances where a

viability appraisal at the decision-making stage may be appropriate to support deviation from

policy requirements. It is also recommended that as part of the legal requirement to assess

whether the local plan needs updating at least once every five years the affordable housing policy

is reviewed, given the sensitivities around key variables and market cycles.

Policy Scenario 1 Policy Scenario 2

Affordable

housing

Policy cost

uplift

Max Average

headroom for CIL (£psm)

Affordable housing

Policy cost

uplift

Max Average


Value area 1 30% Yes £92 30% Yes £92



Value area 4 0% Yes £0 10% Yes -£8



6

2. Financial Viability in Planning: Conduct and Reporting (1st Edition, May 2019) – RICS Professional Statement

2.1. This FVA has been prepared in accordance with the Financial Viability in Planning: Conduct and

Reporting (1st edition) RICS Professional Statement dated May 2019. The document sets out

mandatory requirements on conduct and reporting in relation to FVAs for planning in England to

demonstrate how a reasonable, objective and impartial outcome should be arrived at. It also aims

to support and complement the government’s reforms to the planning process announced in July

2018 and any subsequent updates.

2.2. Sections 2.1 to 2.14 of the Professional Statement set out the fourteen mandatory reporting and

process requirements for all FVAs prepared on behalf of, or by applicants, reviewers, decision-

makers and plan-makers. We confirm that this FVA has been carried out in accordance with

Sections 2.1 to 2.14. The mandatory reporting requirements are set out under the sub-headings

below and expanded on where relevant in this FVA.

2.1: Objectivity, Impartiality and Reasonableness Statement

2.3. We confirm that this FVA has been carried out by a RICS member who has acted with objectivity,

impartiality, without interference and with reference to all appropriate available sources of

information.

2.2: Confirmation of Instructions and Absence of Conflicts of Interest

2.4. Our formal terms of engagement are appended to the rear of this report.

We must declare any conflict of interest or risk of conflict of interest. Section 2.2 states that

‘informed consent’ management through the form of a declaration statement can be appropriate

depending on the circumstances.

In this case, the only relevant concurrent mandate that we consider necessary to disclose is in

relation to Land at Broad Lane, South Kirkby, on which C&W are separately advising a land

promotion client (ION Developments). This site represents a proposed allocation and which is

subject to viability testing through this report. However, we do not consider that any conflict of

interest, or risk of conflict of interest, arises as a result of the interests which we have disclosed,

due to protocols that are put in place to ensure separation between these instructions.

2.3: No Contingent Fee Statement

2.5. In preparing this report, no performance-related or contingent fees have been agreed.

2.4: Transparency of Information

This report documents and shares all relevant information produced as part of this instruction.

The only exclusions are cashflow models (both Excel and Argus) which for reasons of Intellectual

Property Rights, cannot be shared.



7

2.5: Confirmation Where the RICS Member is Acting on Area-Wide and Scheme-Specific FVAs

2.6. We confirm that we have previously advised the Council on several site-specific FVAs in support

other planning applications for development. We have also advised the Council in respect of

previous area-wide viability assessments relating to both the previous Local Plan Core Strategy

and subsequently Community Infrastructure Levy Viability Evidence base.

2.6: Justification of Evidence

2.7. All inputs into this FVA have been reasonably justified as explained in further detail throughout

this report.

2.7: Benchmark Land Value

2.8. We have assessed the benchmark land value in accordance with the requirements of Section 2.7

of the Professional Statement in that we have reported the following:

• Current Use Value (referred to as Existing Use Value (EUV))

• Premium

• Market evidence (as adjusted in accordance with the PPG)

• All supporting considerations, assumptions and justifications adopted

• Alternative Use Value (as appropriate)

2.9. Full justification of the adopted benchmark land value is provided in this report.

2.9: Sensitivity Analysis

2.10. A sensitivity analysis is provided in selective areas where sensitivities are considered appropriate

for testing.

2.10: Engagement

2.11. We confirm that we have advocated, and will advocate reasonable, transparent and appropriate

engagement between the parties at all stages of the viability process.

2.11: Non-technical Summaries

2.12. A non-technical summary is provided at the beginning of this report which includes the key figures

and issues that support the conclusions drawn from this FVA.

2.14: Timescales

2.13. We confirm that adequate time has been allowed to produce this FVA having regard to the scale

of this particular project.

2.14. We further confirm that this FVA has been carried out in accordance with Section 4 – Duty of Care

and Due Diligence of the Professional Statement and that full consideration has been given to the

matters referenced in Section 4.



8

3. Introduction

Purpose

3.1. Wakefield Council has instructed Cushman & Wakefield to prepare the viability evidence base in

support of Wakefield’s emerging Local Plan to 2036 (Volume 1: Development Strategy, Strategic

and Local Policies and Volume 2: Settlement Specific Policies). This work focusses specifically

on residential development across the district.

3.2. The requirement for viability testing of Local Plans has arisen as a result of the requirements of

the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) published in March 2012. Since then, the NPPF

has strengthened the importance of viability in the planning process and particularly in respect of

local plan preparation.

Structure of this report

3.3. This report is structured into ten sections.

Following the Executive Summary, details of the RICS Professional Conduct and reporting in

relation to financial viability assessments and this Introduction, Section 4 explains the key

requirements for viability evidence in plan making. Section 5 details the methodology adopted by

Cushman & Wakefield in preparing the Local Plan evidence base. Section 6 includes a review of

the Local Plan policies and identifies which (if any) of the policies are likely to have an impact on

the viability of residential development across the district. Section 7 presents the assumptions

used in our financial viability assessment. Section 8 details the results of the area wide financial

viability assessment. Section 9 provides details of the strategic sites financial viability

assessment. The conclusions and recommendations to Wakefield Council from this work are

presented in Section 10.



9

4. The Requirement for Viability Evidence

4.1. The need for viability testing of Local Plans has arisen as a result of the requirements of the

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) published in March 2012. The NPPF has

strengthened the importance of viability in the planning process and particularly in respect of local

plan preparation.

4.2. In Spring 2018 the Government published three documents for consultation that set out how it

was proposing to deal with planning and the assessment of viability. These documents were:

• Draft National Planning Policy Framework

• Draft Planning Practice Guidance for Viability

• Supporting Housing Delivery Through Developer Contributions – Reforming Developer

Contributions to Affordable Housing and Infrastructure

4.3. The revised National Planning Policy Framework as published in July 2018 has since been

amended with a further revision published in February 2019. There were also some amendments

to the Planning Practice Guidance in July 2018 in relation to viability, however on the 9th May

2019 a further raft of revisions was published. The key changes in policy are detailed below:

A Focus on Plan Making

4.4. The policies in the revised Framework evidence a shift in focus away from site-specific viability

assessments towards viability at the plan making stage. This places greater responsibility on

local authorities to prepare robust and reliable assessments to inform policy requirements for sites

allocated in the Local Plan.

4.5. Paragraph 34 of the Framework requires that ‘Plans should set out the contributions expected

from development…..such policies should not undermine the deliverability of the plan’.

4.6. Paragraph 57 of the Framework states that ‘Where up-to-date policies have set out the

contributions expected from development, planning applications that comply with them should be

assumed to be viable.

4.7. The revised Framework and guidance place much greater emphasis on the use of a typology

approach to viability in order to ensure that the policies that come forward are realistic and

deliverable, based on the types of site that are likely to come forward during the plan period.

Paragraph 004 advises that sites can be grouped into shared characteristics such as size, location

and current use/proposed use or type of development, but the characteristics should reflect ‘the

nature of typical sites that may be developed within the plan area and the type of development

proposed for allocation in the plan’.

4.8. Plan makers are expected to engage with landowners, site promoters and developers and

compare data from existing case study sites to ensure assumptions of costs and values are

realistic and broadly accurate.

4.9. In respect to strategic sites, a different approach is advocated and site-specific viability

assessments are expected at the plan making stage, particularly where a site is critical for

delivering the strategic priorities of the plan (paragraph 005).



10

4.10. There is still some scope for site-specific viability assessments and paragraph 007 of the PPG

sets out circumstances where there may be a need for a viability assessment including where

development is proposed on unallocated sites of a wholly different type to those used in the

viability assessment that informed the plan; where further information on infrastructure or site

costs is required, where particular types of development are proposed which may significantly

vary from standard models of development for sale e.g. build to rent or where a recession or

similar significant economic changes have occurred since the plan was brought into force.

4.11. Where a viability assessment is submitted it should refer back to the viability assessment that

informed the plan, with the onus on the applicant to provide evidence of what has changed since

the adoption of the local plan (PPG paragraph 008).

4.12. The new guidance delivers a clear message that there is an expectation and responsibility on the

part of site promoters to engage in the plan making stage alongside other stakeholders and the

local community so that plan makers can obtain evidence to ensure that the policies in plans are

realistic and deliverable. This process should be an iterative process during plan preparation

(paragraph 002).

4.13. In no circumstances will the price paid for land be a justification for failing to accord with the

relevant policies in the plan and as such landowners and site purchasers should consider the

cumulative cost of all relevant policies of an up-to-date plan when agreeing land transactions.

The Price Paid for Land

4.14. The price paid for land must be established on existing use value (EUV) of the land plus a

premium for the landowner, known as EUV+. Paragraphs 013 – 016 of the guidance sets out

how this should be assessed. Paragraph 013 advises that 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 fully comply with policy requirements.’

4.15. The idea in the original Framework (2012) and accompanying guidance that viability should

consider ‘competitive returns to a willing landowner and willing developer’ to enable the

development to be deliverable has been removed. The previous policy and guidance gave more

latitude for developers to run a viability argument and reduce the amount of developer

contributions to below the policy requirement. The intention of the new guidance is to reduce the

occurrence of individual viability cases through the Development Management process; provided

of course that there is an up-to-date plan in place.

4.16. Paragraph 018 confirms that for the purpose of plan making an assumption of 15 – 20% may be

considered a suitable return to developers in order to establish the viability of plans.

Developer Contributions

4.17. The revised guidance in the PPG makes it clear that plans should set out the contributions

expected from development, including setting out the levels and types of affordable housing

provision along with any other infrastructure (paragraph 001). This will provide more certainty to

developers from the outset regarding the scale of contributions that will be expected.



11

4.18. Paragraph 029 of the PPG introduces new guidance on funding schools’ places through

developer contributions. The PPG makes it clear that it is now Government policy to transfer the

responsibility for the funding of new school places away from central government and to put the

onus on local government and the planning system to secure the necessary funding. This has

been reinforced by new guidance from the Department of Education. In considering plan making

the PPG advises that when considering viability plan makers and local education authorities

should work collaboratively to identify which schools are likely to expand and where new schools

will be required as a result of planned growth.

4.19. This policy direction taken by the Government means that the requirement for educations

contributions, will need to be balanced against other policy requirements (including affordable

housing, health and other infrastructure), taking the overall viability of the development into

account.

Accountability

4.20. The guidance advises that all viability assessments will be publicly available other than in

exceptional circumstances, and even then, an executive summary should be made available

(paragraph 021).

4.21. Practitioners are required to prepare an executive summary using a standard template to present

the data and findings of a viability assessment so that the findings are accessible to affected

communities.

RICS Guidelines

4.22. The RICS Practice guidance, Financial Viability in Planning 2012, is the viability methodology for

chartered surveyors. The RICS published a draft update of this guidance note (RICS draft

guidance note: Assessing Financial Viability in Planning) in 2019 and this is currently under

consultation. The currently adopted 2012 document provides the following definition of viability:

“An objective financial viability test is the ability of a development project to meet its costs

including the costs of planning obligations, while ensuring an appropriate site value for the land

owner and market risk adjusted return to the developer in delivering the project” (para 2.1)

4.23. This is illustrated in Figure 4.1 which compares two developments. Development 1 demonstrates

a viable development whereby the land value, development costs, planning obligations and

developers return are equal to the value of development. Development 2 has increased

development costs which put downward pressure on the land value capable of being achieved

and renders the development unviable as the developer’s return and planning obligations remain

constant. The guiding principle of all viability assessments is that all development costs (including

land, profit and planning gain) must not exceed the value of development and has been applied

in our assessment of financial viability in Wakefield.



12

Figure 4.1: Comparative development viability

Source: RICS Financial Viability in Planning Guidance Note (1st Edition, 2012)



13

5. Methodology for Preparing Local Plan Viability Evidence

5.1. Our methodology for preparing Local Plan Viability Evidence is based on the revised National

Planning Policy Framework (2019) and Planning Practice Guidance which as detailed in Section

4, places greater responsibility on local authorities to prepare robust and reliable assessments to

inform policy requirements for sites allocated in the Local Plan. It is also based on the guidance

in Financial Viability in Planning 2012.

5.2. Our methodology as summarised by Figure 5.1 involves the following key tasks:

• A market assessment, to profile the types of residential development likely to come

forward and the economics of development within the District (i.e. costs, rents/capital

values and other relevant development appraisal assumptions).

• Analysis of sites in the Draft Local Plan, to identify the residential scheme typologies to

be tested through the viability assessment. Preferred sites from the Draft Local Plan have

been assimilated into a series of hypothetical schemes that have been tested in different

locations across the District.

• Review of draft policies, to ‘screen’ those policies that are likely to have a direct impact

on development costs/viability that require testing.

• Consultation with stakeholders and developers, to test and refine the development

appraisal assumptions base.

• Area wide viability modelling and assessment of the selected schemes, including

sensitivity analysis.

• Financial viability assessment (using Argus Developer software) of a number of the

strategic development sites within the Draft Local Plan.

• Interpretation/development of policy implications for the Local Plan.

Figure 5.1: Cushman & Wakefield’s methodology for preparing viability evidence



14

Cushman & Wakefield Area Wide Viability Model

5.3. Cushman & Wakefield has developed a viability model which involves the analysis of a selection

of hypothetical development schemes which reflect the wide range of circumstances in which

development is anticipated to come forward across the district of Wakefield.

5.4. The assessment involves a residual appraisal methodology in accordance with national policy

and RICS guidance. Cushman & Wakefield has developed an Excel spreadsheet based

economic viability model that allows a number of development sites to be assessed. The model

also enables sensitivity testing of key variables.

5.5. This approach involves the following key steps as illustrated by Figure 5.2:

• Determination of residential value areas, development schemes and viability

assumptions.

• A residual appraisal is then carried out subtracting all anticipated development costs from

the scheme’s Gross/Net Development Value to arrive at a residual site value for each

development scheme. The appraisal includes provision for affordable housing, planning

policy requirements and S106 obligations as inputs.

• The residual site value for each development scheme is then benchmarked against a site

value threshold to determine the ‘headroom’.

Figure 5.2: Area wide viability testing methodology



15

Preparation of Financial Viability Assessment Assumptions

5.6. Following an analysis of the local residential property market and the preparation of draft

development appraisal assumptions for the area wide financial viability assessment, Cushman &

Wakefield consulted on the appraisal assumptions it proposed using in June 2019.

5.7. A stakeholder consultation was held at Wakefield Town Hall on 13 June 2019, which was attended

by developers, house-builders, registered housing providers, and property and planning agents.

The consultation was used to test and refine the approach to the financial viability assessment of

the Local Plan and assumptions behind the viability modelling. A list of those who attended the

workshop is at Appendix 1.

5.8. The Council invited consultees to complete a questionnaire survey, seeking views on the draft

development appraisal assumptions, encouraging participants to share their experience of the

local residential property market. A copy of the questionnaire survey is at Appendix 2.

5.9. The responses to the questionnaire survey were analysed by Cushman & Wakefield and used to

shape the assumptions presented in Section 7 of this report. A summary of any key variances

between consultee responses and our development appraisal assumptions is provided at

Appendix 3.

5.10. In respect to the development assumptions provided by site promoters for the financial viability

assessments of the strategic sites, Cushman & Wakefield has reviewed these to ensure that the

appraisal inputs proposed by site promoters are robust and market facing, making adjustments

where necessary in consultation with the site promoter.



16

6. Review of Draft Local Plan Policies and Sites

6.1. Cushman & Wakefield has carried out an assessment of the Draft Local Plan policies to determine

those that have the potential to impinge on development viability and therefore necessitate testing

through this study.

6.2. Table 6.1 lists the policies by reference number, together with the categorisation of whether or

not they could affect development viability, a description of the impact and details of the

assessment required to determine their viability. Where policies explicitly state a requirement for

a specific standard it is judged to have the potential to affect development viability.

Table 6.1: Local Plan Policy Screening

Policy Impact upon

viability and

assessment

required to

determine

impact on

viability

Comments

WSP 3

Location of

Development

Potential Most new development, including most housing,

employment, retail and mixed-use development,

will take place within the urban areas taking advantage of

existing services and high levels of accessibility.

Significant amounts of development will be located in the

Sub Regional City of Wakefield, the Five Towns and the

South East, with a particular focus on the regeneration of

Castleford, Featherstone, Knottingley, Normanton and

South Elmsall / South Kirkby.

WSP 5 Scale

and Distribution

of Additional

Housing

Yes –

sensitivity

testing of

development

schemes at

30 dwellings

per hectare

(dph), 40 dph

and 50 dph)

to be

undertaken

through the

area wide

viability

model.

The largest number of additional houses will be built in the

Sub Regional City of Wakefield, with similar numbers in

the Principal Town of Castleford. As a Sub Regional City it

is expected the urban area of Wakefield, including its

suburbs will accommodate about 20% of the district's

housing requirement. As a Principal Town with extensive

areas of previously developed land in need of regeneration

Castleford is also expected to accommodate about 20%.

Pontefract will be expected to accommodate less growth,

about 10%, reflecting the extensive residential

development that has occurred in the town in recent years.

Of the other urban areas identified in the settlement

hierarchy, the towns of Featherstone, Hemsworth,

Knottingley, Normanton and South Elmsall/South Kirkby

will be the main focus of new housing growth, reflecting

their status as sustainable settlements, their relative size

and function and the need for urban regeneration. In the

towns of Horbury, Ossett and Stanley/Outwood growth will

be more constrained in order to ensure a sustainable

development pattern. Together these settlements are



17

Policy Impact upon

viability and

assessment

required to

determine

impact on

viability

Comments

expected to accommodate about 40% of the district's

housing requirement.

Limited numbers of additional houses will be built in Local

Service Centres to meet the needs of the settlement and

its immediate area and to help create sustainable

communities.

Together these settlements are expected to accommodate

up to 8% of the district's housing requirement. In villages

limited amounts of additional houses will be built to meet

local needs up to a maximum scheme size of 10 dwellings.

Proposals for residential development will achieve a net

residential density of:

a. At least 50 homes a hectare in Wakefield city centre and

Castleford and Pontefract town

centres and within a 500 metres radius of rail and bus

station public transport hubs;

b. At least 40 homes a hectare throughout the rest of the

Wakefield, Castleford and Pontefract urban areas;

c. At least 30 homes a hectare in other urban areas, local

service centres, villages and in the Green Belt.

WSP 6 Housing

Mix,

Affordability

and Quality

Yes –

sensitivity

testing of

development

schemes at

30%, 20%

and 10%

affordable

housing to be

undertaken

through the

area wide

viability

model.

On large strategic sites (60 homes

or 2 hectares or more) the housing mix should reflect the

local need for different types of specialist

housing, for different sizes of home, price and different

types of tenure. For smaller sites, the mix of housing

should contribute to the creation of mixed communities

having regard to local community needs and the existing

mix of housing in the locality.

All proposals for additional housing, including those for a

mix of uses, above the identified size thresholds set out

below, must provide 30% of homes as affordable housing

which must meet identified local community need. The

types of tenures considered affordable are defined in the

National Planning Policy Framework. Affordable homes

should be provided on the application site, unless off site

provision or a financial contribution of broadly equivalent

value can be robustly justified by the applicant.



18

Policy Impact upon

viability and

assessment

required to

determine

impact on

viability

Comments

Affordable housing provision will be required above the

following size thresholds:

i. Where the proposal is for 15 or more homes, or is on a

site of 0.5 hectares or more in area, and is within an urban

area or local service centre as defined in the settlement

hierarchy;

ii. Where the proposal is for 10 or more homes or is on a

site of 0.5 hectares or more and is within a village as

defined in the settlement hierarchy or located in the green

belt or outside of a settlement boundary.

WSP 12

Sustainable

Transport

Potential In the case of residential development, it is within

convenient walking distance of essential local facilities and

public transport services, including within 400 metres of

existing or proposed public transport services.

Development which generates a large number of

passenger movements should be located in Wakefield city

centre, in other town centres in the main urban areas or at

locations which provide convenient access on foot, by

cycle and public transport.

WSP 19 Digital

Infrastructure

Potential To support economic growth and social wellbeing in

Wakefield District now and in the future, development

proposals should:

1. achieve high quality, mobile and broadband digital

connectivity at the appropriate level for the development;

2. ensure that sufficient ducting space for future digital

connectivity infrastructure is provided;

3. prioritise full fibre open access connections to existing

and new development;

4. meet requirements for mobile connectivity within the

development and take appropriate mitigation measures to

avoid reducing mobile connectivity in surrounding areas;

5. avoid or mitigate detrimental impacts on successful

functioning digital infrastructure; and

6. support the effective use of the public realm (such as

street furniture and bins) and rooftops to accommodate

well-designed and located mobile digital infrastructure.



19

Policy Impact upon

viability and

assessment

required to

determine

impact on

viability

Comments

WSP 20

Community

Facilities

Potential Development proposals will not result in the loss of an

existing community facility or service unless:

a. Satisfactory alternative provision is made; or

b. There are cumulative community benefits identified as

part of regeneration schemes; or

c. It can be demonstrated that the facility is no longer

needed.

WSP 23

Mitigating and

Adapting to

Climate

Change and

Efficient Use of

Resources

Yes –

included

within 5%

uplift in build

costs

1. In order to be sustainable, development must minimise

the impact and mitigate the likely effects of climate change

on existing and future occupants, the wider community and

the environment and minimise the use of natural

resources. This will be achieved by:

a. Avoiding unacceptable levels of flood risk, particularly in

areas of high flood risk such as the Calder River Valley,

the Went River Basin, and river tributaries in the south

east of the district;

b. Requiring all new development proposals to include

climate change resilient design to reduce reliance on

existing flood defence infrastructure into the future;

c. Taking measures to reduce carbon emissions and adapt

to climate change during the construction and operation of

new developments through, for example, orientation,

layout, design and material selection;

d. The prudent and efficient use of natural resources

including energy, water, soil and the best and most

versatile agricultural land and the use of re-used and

recycled materials;

e. Proactively managing surface water through the

promotion of sustainable drainage techniques and positive

land management.

f. Through the provision of multi-functional green

infrastructure, which can reduce urban heat islands,

manage flooding and help species adapt to climate

change.

2. In order to contribute to the UK 2050 net zero carbon

emissions target and the objectives of the Council’s

Climate Emergency Resolution and Action Plan the

Council will:



20

Policy Impact upon

viability and

assessment

required to

determine

impact on

viability

Comments

a. Encourage the development of new sources of

renewable energy generation where there is no adverse

environmental impact or harm to nearby communities;

b. Encourage all development to incorporate energy from

decentralised and renewable, or low carbon sources. All

larger developments will be required to incorporate on-site

renewable energy generation capacity, unless it is not

feasible or viable, or there are demonstrable alternative

decentralised and renewable, or low carbon sources.

WLP 2

Accessible

Housing

Standards

Yes – an

uplift of 0.1%

on base build

costs

(inclusive of

external

works is

applied) to

the viability

modelling

New build residential developments over 0.5 hectare or 10

or more homes should include the following proportions of

accessible homes:

1. 9% of homes which meet the standard set in

requirement M4(2) of volume 1, Part M of the Building

Regulations ‘accessible and adaptable dwellings.

2. 3% of homes which meet the standard set in

requirement M4(3) of volume 1, Part M of the Building

Regulations ‘wheelchair user dwellings. The M4(3)

standard should be applied only to those homes where the

Council is responsible for allocating or nominating a

person to live in that home.

On smaller sites, where the percentages set out above

would deliver less than one home, one accessible home

should be provided meeting the relevant building

regulation.

Where the scale of development would generate more

than one accessible home, based on the requirements of

this policy, the mix of sizes, types and tenures of

accessible housing should reflect the mix of sizes, types

and tenures of the development as a whole as closely as

possible (unless there is evidenced need for additional

accessible housing in one particular tenure).

The required number and mix of accessible home should

be clearly illustrated on submitted plans and controlled via

planning condition.

Where it can be robustly justified using evidence that site-

specific viability considerations, make a site unsuitable for

M4(2) and/or M4(3) compliant homes the requirements of

this policy should not apply.



21

Policy Impact upon

viability and

assessment

required to

determine

impact on

viability

Comments

WLP 3

Minimum

Space

Standards

Yes – NDSS

applied in the

viability

modelling

All new homes should comply with the Technical Housing

Standard setting out the Nationally Described Space

Standard for internal space in new dwellings. This will

apply across all tenures. The Standard requires that:

a. the dwelling provides at least the gross internal floor area and built-in storage area set out in the table below

b. a dwelling with two or more bed spaces has at least one double (or twin) bedroom

c. in order to provide one bed space, a single bedroom has a floor area of at least 7.5m2 and is at least 2.15m wide

d. in order to provide two bed spaces, a double (or twin bedroom) has a floor area of at least 11.5m2

e. one double (or twin bedroom) is at least 2.75m wide and every other double (or twin) bedroom is at least 2.55m wide

f. any area with a headroom of less than 1.5m is not counted within the Gross Internal Area unless used solely for storage (if the area under the stairs is to be used for storage, assume a general floor area of 1m2 within the Gross Internal Area)

g. any other area that is used solely for storage and has a headroom of 900- 1500mm (such as under eaves) is counted at 50% of its floor area, and any area lower than 900mm is not counted at all

h. a built-in wardrobe counts towards the Gross Internal Area and bedroom floor area requirements, but should not reduce the effective width of the room below the minimum widths set out above. The built-in area in excess of 0.72m2 in a double bedroom and 0.36m2 in a single bedroom counts towards the built-in storage requirement

i. the minimum floor to ceiling height is 2.3m for at least 75% of the Gross Internal Area

Minimum gross internal floor areas and storage (m2)

Number of

bedrooms(b)

Number

of bed

spaces

(persons)

1 storey

dwellings

2 storey

dwellings

3 storey

dwellings

Built-in

storage

1b 1p 39 (37)* 1.0



22

Policy Impact upon

viability and

assessment

required to

determine

impact on

viability

Comments

2p 50 58 1.5

2b

3p 61 70

2.0

4p 70 79

3b

4p 74 84 90

2.5 5p 86 93 99

6p 95 102 108

4b

5p 90 97 103

3.0

6p 99 106 112

7p 108 115 121

8p 117 124 130

5b

6p 103 110 116

3.5 7p 112 119 125

8p 121 128 134

6b

7p 116 123 129

4.0

8p 125 132 138

*Where a one person flat has a shower room rather than a

bathroom, the floor area may be reduced from 39m2 to

37m2

Proposals for the development of student

accommodation and houses in multiple occupation will

not be subject to the Nationally Described Space

Standard. Such development should, however, reflect

the Nationally Described Space Standard with

appropriate adjustments to address the particular

characteristics of these types of development.

It should be noted that:

i. The Gross Internal Area of a dwelling is defined as the

total floor space measured between the internal faces of

perimeter walls that enclose the dwelling. This includes

partitions, structural elements, cupboards, ducts, flights of

stairs and voids above stairs. The Gross Internal Area

should be measured and denoted in square metres (m2).



23

Policy Impact upon

viability and

assessment

required to

determine

impact on

viability

Comments

ii. If the area under the stairs is to be used for storage,

assume a general floor area of 1m2 within the Gross

Internal Area.

iii. The standards are organized by numbers of storeys to

take account of extra circulation space needed for stairs

between floors.

WLP 5

Residential

Development in

Town Centres

Potential Proposals should retain and enhance the design and

heritage features of buildings. Proposals should protect the

amenity of existing residents and future occupiers of the

proposed

residential use in accordance with amenity and design

policies in the Local Plan. Proposals should include the

provision of space for the storage of sustainable modes of

transport such as bicycles and, where appropriate, electric

vehicle charging points. Space for vehicular parking should

be provided in accordance with the current parking

standards. Access should not cause problems of highway

or pedestrian safety; and appropriate provision should be

made for refuse storage and collection.

WLP 19 Public

Realm

Principles and

Objectives in

Wakefield City

Centre

Potential New development within central Wakefield will be required

to make:

a. A positive contribution to the public realm by virtue of its

siting, design and materials; and

b. A financial contribution towards public realm

improvements where appropriate.

WLP 26 Access

and Highway

Safety

Potential Development proposals shall demonstrate that they can be

accessed conveniently and safely and by modes of

transport other than the car. In particular proposals shall:

a. Ensure the safe and free flow of traffic within the

development and on the surrounding highway network;

b. Be supported by travel plans which encourage the use

of public transport, cycling and walking, where appropriate;

c. Allow access and penetration by public transport, where

appropriate;

d. Provide pedestrian and cycling connections within the

site and to its surroundings, including linking into existing

and proposed pedestrian and cycling routes where



24

Policy Impact upon

viability and

assessment

required to

determine

impact on

viability

Comments

appropriate, and ensuring these can be accessed easily

and safely by all sections of the community;

e. Include provision for safe cycle storage;

f. Provide a level of parking provision appropriate to the

proposal and its location (applying the agreed maximum

standards set out in current guidance), ensuring that such

provision is located in safe and accessible locations,

paying particular attention to the needs of wheelchair/pram

users which should be located close to entrances;

g. Take into account changes in site levels to ensure the

development can be accessed easily and safely by all

sections of the community and by different modes of

transport;

h. Take into account the features of surrounding roads and

footpaths and provide adequate layout and visibility to

allow the development to be accessed safely; and

i. Take into account access for emergency, service and

refuse collection vehicles.

WLP 28 Flood

Risk

Potential Measures to mitigate the risk of flooding and to manage

any residual flood risk must be provided as part of the

development and provision must be made for their future

maintenance.

WLP 29

Drainage

Strategy

covered by

professional

fees

Potential

Major flooding events have occurred within the district

caused by surface water and sewer flooding. A drainage

strategy will be required for all development.

1. Surface water from new developments must be

managed using sustainable drainage systems unless it

can be demonstrated that they are not technically

feasible. New developments on existing formally

drained brownfield sites will be expected to reduce

run-off rates by at least 30% and must not increase

existing rates on greenfield sites. Change of use

developments and conversions will be expected to

incorporate sustainable drainage techniques wherever

possible.

2. Development will only be permitted if infrastructure

required to service the development is available or the

provision of infrastructure can be co-ordinated to meet

the demand generated by the new development.



25

Policy Impact upon

viability and

assessment

required to

determine

impact on

viability

Comments

3. Development will only be permitted where it can be

demonstrated that it would not result in an

unacceptable impact on water quality.

WLP 30

Renewable

Energy

Yes – 5%

uplift added

to base build

costs

(combined

impact

alongside

WSP 23 and

WLP 31)

In order to contribute to the UK 2050 net zero carbon

emissions target and the objectives of the Council’s

Climate Emergency Resolution and Action Plan all

developments of 0.5 hectares or more in site area, or 10 or

more dwellings, or 1,000 square metres or more floor area

for employment, commercial, leisure and community

development (including conversions) will be required to

provide a minimum of 10% of the predicted energy needs

of the development from onsite renewable or low carbon

energy generation technology unless it can be

demonstrated that it is not technical feasibility or financially

viable, or there are demonstrable alternative decentralised

renewable, or low carbon energy services.

If it can be demonstrated that renewable or low carbon

energy generation is not practical, it may be acceptable to

provide in lieu of provision, a contribution equivalent to the

cost of providing the 10% which the Council will use

towards off-site low carbon schemes. Wherever possible,

the low carbon projects would be linked with local projects

that would bring local benefits.

Applicants will be required to submit an Energy

Assessment with their application to demonstrate

compliance with this Policy. Where end user requirements

change significantly, an updated Energy Assessment

should be submitted prior to construction.

WLP 31

Sustainable

Construction

and Efficient

Use of

Resources

Potential The Council will require that new development within the

district shall be energy and water efficient and incorporate

built-in conservation measures. Opportunities to conserve

energy and water resources through the layout and design

of the development shall be maximized. In considering

planning applications the Council will require where

practical:

a. The use of solar energy, passive solar gain and

heat recycling (such as combined heat and

power);

b. Layouts which reduce wind-chill and maximize the

efficient use of natural light;



26

Policy Impact upon

viability and

assessment

required to

determine

impact on

viability

Comments

c. The use of green roofs, rainwater and grey water

storage and recycling, and sustainable drainage

systems;

d. The use of renewable and recycled materials

during construction and provision for the recycling

of construction, demolition and excavation wastes.

New housing or the adaptation of buildings to provide

dwellings, must achieve at least a 20% reduction in carbon

emissions measured against the relevant Target Emission

Rate (TER) set out in the Building Regulations 2010 (as

amended) Part L, equivalent to energy performance

standards of Level 4 of the Code for Sustainable Homes,

until such time that this standard is surpassed by updated

Building Regulations.

All non-residential developments of over 1,000 square

meters of floorspace, (including conversion) where

feasible, will be required to meet the BREEAM standard of

'excellent'.

Carbon dioxide emissions reduction achieved through

renewable or low carbon energy generation in Policy

WLP30 will contribute to meeting this policy.

WLP 32

Electric Vehicle

Charging

Infrastructure

Yes –

included

within the

allowance for

Section 106

contributions

All applications for new development which include

provision of parking spaces will be required to meet the

minimum standard of provision of electric vehicle charging

points.

This requires:

1. Residential: 1 charging point per dedicated parking

space and where parking spaces are unallocated (for

example visitor parking) 1 charging point per 10 spaces.

If it is not practical or feasible to provide electric vehicle

charging within the development, then an equivalent

contribution should be made to public electric vehicle

charging infrastructure (for example on-street charging or

public charge-points on public car parks).

WLP 34 District

Heating and

Cooling

Infrastructure

Potential Where Combined Cooling Heat and Power distribution

networks already exist, all new developments are required

to connect to them, or be connection-ready, unless it can

be clearly demonstrated that utilising a different energy



27

Policy Impact upon

viability and

assessment

required to

determine

impact on

viability

Comments

supply would be more sustainable or connection is not

technically feasible or financially viable.

Where technically feasible and financially viable, and in

areas with sufficient existing or potential heat density,

developments of 1,000 sqm or more or residential

developments at least 50 dwellings a hectare and or 300

dwellings or more (including conversions) should propose

heating and cooling systems according to the following

heating and cooling hierarchy:

1. Construction of a site wide renewable Combined

Cooling Heat and Power,

2. Construction of a site wide gas-fired Combined Cooling

Heat and Power,

3. Construction of site wide renewable community

heating/cooling,

4. Site wide gas-fired community heating/cooling,

5. Collaboration with neighbouring development sites or

existing heat loads/sources to develop a viable shared

District Heating network,

6. Individual building renewable heating,

7. Individual building heating, with the exception of electric

heating

In areas where District Heating is currently not viable, but

there is potential for future District Heating networks, all

development proposals will need to demonstrate how sites

have been designed to allow for connection to a future

District Heating network.

All Combined Cooling Heat and Power must be of a scale

and operated to maximise the potential for carbon

reduction. Carbon savings and renewable energy

generation achieved under this policy will contribute to the

target set out in Policy WLP 30 and Policy WLP 31.

WLP 43 The

Effect of

Development

on Public

Services

Potential Development will be granted planning permission provided

that infrastructure, facilities and

services exist, or can be provided via the development,

which will allow the development to

proceed without an unacceptable adverse impact on

existing provision.



28

Policy Impact upon

viability and

assessment

required to

determine

impact on

viability

Comments

WLP 45 Open

Space in New

Development

Potential The Council will require open space to be provided either

on-site, or contributions in lieu of on-site provision, or a

combination of both, as appropriate. This will be assessed

in accordance with the Council's open space standards

and the Playing Pitch Strategy on a site-specific basis

taking account of the needs of new residents and the

existing facilities serving the community area.

WLP 46

Requirements

for Open Space

in New Housing

Development

Potential The Council will require open space to be provided for

residents of new housing development as set out below.

1. For sites of 15 dwellings and over and between 0.5 to 2

hectares in area, a developer contribution in lieu of on-site

provision will be required.

2. For sites of 2 hectares and over the developer will be

required to provide either:

i. 10% of the site area of the development as open space,

or

ii. A commuted sum for investment in open space to serve

the development, or

iii. A combination of commuted sum and on-site open

space, according to local requirements.

WLP49

Ecological and

Geological

Conservation

Yes, to be

covered from

abnormal

allowance

Where development is permitted within areas of ecological

or geological conservation, the Council will require

developers to:

a. Minimize disturbance;

b. Protect and enhance the site’s ecological value;

c. Ensure appropriate management;

d. Ensure appropriate mitigation measures are designed

into the proposal and work on the site does not commence

until these measures are in place;

e. Work to approved methods; and

f. Create new or replacement habitats with a minimum net

gain of 10% of the current ecological value of the site

calculated using the Defra Metric, in accordance with

National Planning Policy.



29

Policy Impact upon

viability and

assessment

required to

determine

impact on

viability

Comments

WLP 54 Design

of New

Development

Potential For residential development across the district (including

Wakefield city centre) applicants should

refer to and utilise the guidance in the Residential Design

Guide Supplementary Planning Document

and any future updates to it.

WLP 57

Landscape

Character

Potential Development proposals shall:

a. Conserve and integrate existing natural features;

b. Use new landscape features such as planting, shelter

belts, and green spaces to integrate development with the

wider landscape;

c. Integrate new and existing development at the

boundaries of the site through the continuity of landscape;

d. Create areas of valuable habitat for wildlife by additional

planting of native species rather than

by using purely decorative planting; and

e. Where appropriate allow public access and/or provide

opportunities for recreation.

6.3. This ‘screening exercise’ has identified there are a number of policies which impose specific

standards that require viability testing. These standards are tested through the area wide viability

modelling and site-specific viability appraisals as indicated in italic text in the table above.

6.4. The remaining policies are those which indicate that standards will be required in certain

circumstances but not universally; and it is not possible to pinpoint specific cost impacts in an

area wide analysis of this type. The cost impact of these policies, which are referenced in the

table above as having the ‘potential’ to affect viability, is considered to be allowed for within the

general appraisal assumptions used in the viability assessments detailed in Section 7 of this

report.



30

7. Financial Viability Assessment – appraisal assumptions

7.1. This section outlines the assumptions that have been used in the viability analysis. The

assumptions take into consideration the views of landowners and developers who engaged in the

stakeholder consultation. Where consultees have suggested variations to the viability

assumptions detailed, this is detailed in Appendix 3. Otherwise, it should be assumed that the

assumptions below are broadly accepted.

Residential Market Areas

7.2. Four value areas have been selected as geographical zones for undertaking financial viability

assessments, as shown in the market strength heat map (Figure 7.1):

• Value Area 1 Over £200,000 average house price

• Value Area 2 £150,001 to £200,000 average house price

• Value Area 3 £125,001 to £150,000 average house price

• Value Area 4 £0 to £125,000 average house price

7.3. These zones are based on the average achieved house prices for all residential property types,

for all postcode sectors in the district of Wakefield; as recorded by HM Land Registry over the 12-

month period to June 2019. The heat map identifies the “hottest” areas (or strongest market

areas in the district) as the darkest pink. The “cooler” market areas are represented by paler pink

shading representing relatively weaker market areas.

Figure 7.1 Achieved residential land values in Wakefield District.

Source: HM Land Registry



31

7.4. The selection of the value bands was based on a review of distribution of average house prices

(based on all dwelling transactions from HM Land Registry) and then assessing the correlation of

average house prices and evidence of the prices achieved on new build data on recent new build

housing schemes. Some minor manual adjustments were made where certain postal areas’

average house price were close to the band parameter and the new build evidence was

compelling in favour of placing the postal district into a different band. These were limited to two

postal areas:

• WF10 1 and WF10 5 (Castleford) – the average house price puts these locations marginally

into Value Area 2 however the new build evidence assessed suggests significantly lower

values so these postal areas were adjusted to fall within Value Area 3

• WF110 (Knottingley) – the average house price puts this location into Value Area 3, however

the new build evidence indicates it more appropriate that this location be placed in Value

Area 4.

Site Selection

7.5. We have selected four site sizes for our area wide viability modelling. The site sizes are based

on our analysis of the residential development sites anticipated to come forward over the local

plan period to 2036. Figure 7.2 shows the percentage breakdown of all housing sites in the Initial

Draft Local Plan Housing Trajectory and forms the justification for selecting hypothetical schemes

ranging from one to ten hectares in size. Sites larger than ten hectares are not tested through

the area wide viability modelling; however, there are several examples of sites larger than 10

hectares which are assessed through the site-specific viability assessment (Section 10).

Figure 7.2: Site sizes of residential site allocations

Source: Wakefield Initial Draft Wakefield Local Plan Housing Trajectory

11%

29%

22%

21%

17%

0 - 0.99ha 1 - 2.49ha 2.5 - 4.99ha 5 - 9.99ha 10ha >



32

7.6. It is accepted that the housing mix adopted on developments across the district will vary

depending on their location, density and local housing need. In undertaking the area wide viability

modelling, we have targeted a built floor area of 14,000 – 16,000 sq ft per acre in line with what

Cushman & Wakefield is seeing being delivered on housing developments locally and across the

country. The built floor area is based on the relationship between the unit sizes and site density.

The viability of schemes is assessed on three housing densities (30 dwellings per hectare (dph),

40 dph and 50dph). The housing mix percentages, unit numbers and site densities are illustrated

in the table below.

7.7. Each of the twelve hypothetical residential schemes is tested in each of the four value areas;

thereby enabling the financial viability assessment of 48 schemes across the district through the

area wide viability model.

Residential unit types and size (market and affordable)

7.8. In line with the requirements of the Draft Local Plan, and as directed by Wakefield Council, we

have adopted unit sizes based on the Department for Communities and Local Government’s

“Technical housing standards - Nationally described space standard” as detailed in the table

below. The report deals with internal space within new dwellings and is suitable for application

across all tenures. It sets out requirements for the Gross Internal (floor) Area of new dwellings at

a defined level of occupancy as well as floor areas and dimensions for key parts of the home,

notably bedrooms, storage and floor to ceiling height.

Unit size sq m sq ft

1 bed flat (2 person) 1 storey 50 538


2 bed house (4 person) 2 storey 70 753

3 bed house (5 person) 2 storey 93 1,001



Net

(Hectares)

Net

(acres) 1 bed flat 2 bed flat

2 bed

house

3 bed

house

4 bed

house

5 bed

house

Sq m Sq ft Sq m per

ha

Sq ft

per acre

Scheme 1 1 2.47 30 30 0% 0% 15% 40% 30% 15% 3,042 32,744 3,042 13,251

Scheme 2 2.5 6.18 30 75 0% 0% 15% 40% 30% 15% 7,605 81,859 3,042 13,251

Scheme 3 5 12.36 30 150 0% 0% 15% 40% 30% 15% 15,210 163,719 3,042 13,251

Scheme 4 10 24.71 30 300 0% 0% 15% 40% 30% 15% 30,420 327,438 3,042 13,251

Scheme 5 1 2.47 40 40 0% 0% 30% 50% 20% 0% 3,620 38,965 3,620 15,768

Scheme 6 2.5 6.18 40 100 0% 0% 30% 50% 20% 0% 9,050 97,413 3,620 15,768

Scheme 7 5 12.36 40 200 0% 0% 30% 50% 20% 0% 18,100 194,827 3,620 15,768

Scheme 8 10 24.71 40 400 0% 0% 30% 50% 20% 0% 36,200 389,653 3,620 15,768

Scheme 9 1 2.47 50 50 10% 15% 40% 35% 0% 0% 3,735 40,203 3,735 16,269

Scheme 10 2.5 6.18 50 125 10% 15% 40% 35% 0% 0% 9,338 100,508 3,735 16,269

Scheme 11 5 12.36 50 250 10% 15% 40% 35% 0% 0% 18,675 201,016 3,735 16,269

Scheme 12 10 24.71 50 500 10% 15% 40% 35% 0% 0% 37,350 402,032 3,735 16,269

Housing mix % Built floor areaDevelopable area

Density

(DPH) No of units



33

7.9. For the avoidance of doubt, the unit sizes are applied to market and affordable units in the area

wide viability model with no reduction in unit size for affordable units.

Residential market sales revenues

7.10. Cushman & Wakefield have undertaken research of where new residential development has

taken place across the Wakefield District over the last three years.

Figure 7.3: Location of new build residential development in Wakefield

Source: HM Land Registry (base heat map), Land Insight, Net House Price

7.11. Land Insight, www.nethouseprice.co.uk and HM land Registry has been used to capture data.

Figure 7.3 illustrates the location of developments which have been used as comparable evidence

to inform residential sales revenues.

7.12. The table below summarises the name and location of each development, which value area they

fall within, the average price per unit and the price per sq m/per sq ft.



34

Map

Ref.

Value

Area

Development

Name

Address Developer Average

Price (£)

Average

Price £

per sq m

Average

Price £

per sq ft1 2 Kings Glade Newmillerdam, Wakefield, West

Yorkshire WF2 6TU

Linden Homes £569,355 £2,778 £258

2 3 Manor Park Pontefract, West Yorkshire WF8 2HN Linden Homes £198,909 £2,244 £208

3 2 Redwood Crigglestone, Wakefield, West

Yorkshire WF2 7YY

Avant Homes £278,321 £2,174 £221

4 2 City Fields City Fields, Wakefield, West Yorkshire,

WF1 4TS

Bellway £244,657 £2,530 £235

5 4 Agenda Off Balne Lane, Wakefield, West

Yorkshire WF1 2GE

Strata £148,568 £2,233 £207

6 1 Epitome Red Hall Lane, Wakefield, WF1 2DF Strata £273,268 £2,271 £211

7 3 Intrigue Holly Approach, Ossett, WF5 9TA Strata £226,727 £2,113 £196

8 3 Attitude Whitwood Lane, Castleford, WF10 5QD Strata £273,097 £1,839 £171

9 3 Origin Girnhill Lane, Featherstone, WF7 5NF Strata £136,806 £1,589 £148

10 1 Elegance Bracken Hill, Ackworth, Pontefract,

WF7 7BE

Strata £249,072 £1,876 £195

11 3 Friarwood Park Friarwood Lane, Pontefract, WF8 1DY Persimmon £160,112 £2,072 £192

12 1 Lindale Park Lindale Park, Batley Road, Alverthorpe,

Wakefield, WF2 0AN

Persimmon £174,716 £2,114 £196

13 3 Sycamore

Gardens

Ackton Pastures, Castleford, West

Yorkshire, WF10 5FL

Persimmon £174,148 £2,055 £191

14 2 Edenbrook Vale Park Road, Pontefract, WF8 4QD Harron Homes £277,413 £2,301 £214

15 2 Royal Wells

Park

Bedford Farm Court Crofton, WF4 1AN Harron Homes £261,334 £2,359 £219

16 1 Leafield

Gardens

Wrenthorpe, Wakefield WF2 0FT Orion Homes £336,217 £2,944 £273

17 2 Thornes Gate Thornsgate Gardens, Wakefield, WF2

8ZB

Bridge Homes £283,825 £2,515 £234

18 2 Calder Fields Field Gate View, Wakefield, WF2 7NW Bridge Homes £175,617 £2,332 £217

19 1 The Gateway Wolfenden Way, Wakefield, West

Yorkshire WF1 3FA

Avant Homes £322,574 £2,596 £241

20 1 Kingsbury

Meadows

Ruby Street, Wakefield, WF1 2GA Persimmon £239,697 £2,507 £233

21 2 City Fields City Fields, Wakefield, West Yorkshire,

WF1 4FB

Miller £251,627 £2,649 £246

22 4 Rainsborough

Park

Woodville Way, Knottingley, WF11 0HT Gleeson £124,578 £1,819 £169

23 4 Fir Tree Court Fir Tree Court, Knottingley, WF11 8JF Noble Homes £169,333 £2,021 £188

24 3 Limetrees Limetrees, Pontefract, WF8 2QB Noble Homes £186,038 £2,104 £196

25 3 Clover View Clover View, Normanton, WF6 2HT Taylor Wimpey £190,226 £2,110 £196

26 2 Woodland Court School St, Pontefract, WF9 1JQ Gleeson £123,567 £1,672 £155

27 4 Westfield Lane WF9 2FA Unknown £132,230 £1,458 £135

28 4 Keepmoat Spring Close, Kinsley, WF9 5LU Kingswood £137,251 £1,690 £157

29 1 Chatsworth

Court

School Lane, Wakefield, WF2 6PA Berkeley DeVeer £323,998 £2,592 £241



35

7.13. Cushman & Wakefield has used this information to inform the sales revenues in the area wide

viability modelling. We have excluded outliers in data and affordable housing units, so that the

average sales values best reflect the average price per sq m for market units recently being

delivered in Wakefield.

7.14. It is important to note that the average house price bands used to inform the value areas illustrated

in Figure 7.1 do not correspond directly to the new build values that are applied in the appraisals.

The average house prices are simply used to demarcate the value areas in which different value

assumptions have been applied.

7.15. The table below summarises the sales revenues applied in Cushman & Wakefield’s viability

modelling and is based on thorough research of a good sample of residential developments

across the district. For Value Area 2, although £2368 psm (£220 psf) represents the central

assumption, a sensitivity has also been modelled at £2,476 psm (£230 psf) reflecting the higher

revenues observed in some parts of Value Area 2

Sales revenues £ per sq m £ per sq ft

Value Area 1 2,583 240

Value Area 2 2,368

(sensitivity

£2,476)

220

(sensitivity

£230)



Affordable Housing

7.16. Cushman & Wakefield have undertaken a financial viability assessment of the twelve hypothetical

developments in each value area including 30%, 20% and 10% affordable housing. This allows

the impact of varying the affordable housing requirement to be tested across the district to

determine the impact on viability dependent on the local market strength.

7.17. The affordable housing mix adopted in the assessment provides for 50% of the affordable units

to be rented and 50% shared ownership.

7.18. The transfer value applied to affordable rented units is 45% of the open market value in each

value area. The transfer value of the shared ownership units is 65% of the open market value in

each value area.

Residential build costs

7.19. Cushman & Wakefield have used BCIS to determine base build costs for the area wide viability

modelling. The base build costs are rebased to Yorkshire and Humber which has a larger sample

size than rebasing costs to the Wakefield District. Data sourced is limited to the last five years so

the most recent fluctuations in build costs are captured.



36

7.20. In order to account for the discounts on build costs when volume building, Cushman & Wakefield

have assessed viability of schemes less than 50 dwellings, which are likely to be brought forward

by smaller, local or regional housing developers. An assessment is also made of schemes greater

than 50 units.

7.21. The median BCIS build cost is used for developments of less than 50 units and the lower quartile

is used for developments greater than 50 units as detailed in the table below:

Estate Housing (generally) £ per sq m £ per sq ft

<50 dwellings (houses) median 1,091 101

>50 dwellings (houses) lower quartile,

less 5%

923 86

Flats

£ per sq m £ per sq ft

Flats (generally) median 1,220 113

7.22. A 10% uplift on base build costs has been applied to allow for external works such as gardens,

driveways, and estate roads. We have not included an additional allowance for external garages

and for the purpose of the area wide viability modelling have assumed that garages are internal.

7.23. To account for Policy WLP 32, an electric vehicle charging point cost allowance of £250 per unit

has been included in the Area Wide Viability Model. For modelling purposes, this has been

inputted as part of the Section 106 costs of the scheme but, in practice, this would be a build cost

to the developer.

7.24. In order to test the impact of Policy WLP 2 which requires developments to provide accessible

homes, Cushman & Wakefield have undertaken sensitivity analysis by assessing the impact of

increasing build costs by 0.1% (inclusive of external works) to allow for this policy standard.

7.25. Cushman & Wakefield has also undertaken a sensitivity analysis to assess the impact of Policy

WLP 30, which requires all developments of 0.5 hectares or more in site area, or 10 or more

dwellings to provide a minimum of 10% of the predicted energy needs of the development from

renewable or low carbon energy generation services, and Policy WLP 31, which requires all new

housing to achieve at least a 20% reduction in carbon emissions measured against the relevant

Target Emission Rate set out in the Building Regulations 2010 Part L. A 5% uplift has been

applied to base build costs to meet both policy requirements1.

1 The Future Homes Standard (MHCLG 2019) at paragraph 3.9 b Option 2 Fabric plus

technology refers to a 31% reduction in CO2 emissions on current building regs (2013), which

includes the use of PV panels to achieve part of this reduction, and the additional build cost for

a new home to achieve this is quoted as being £4,847

https://protect-eu.mimecast.com/s/_-BECojXIPoWBXRsoqrkp?domain=assets.publishing.service.gov.uk



37

7.26. A summary of the uplifts in build costs is detailed in the table below:

uplift uplift uplift

Base build

costs

10% external

works

0.1% Policy WLP

2 Accessible

Dwellings

5% Policy WLP

30

Renewable

Energy

Estate Housing

(generally)

£ per

sq m

£ per

sq ft

£ per

sq m

£ per

sq ft

£ per

sq m

£ per

sq ft

£ per

sq m

£ per

sq ft

<50 dwellings

(houses) median

1,091

101

1,200

111

1,201.30

111.60

1,261.37

117

>50 dwellings

(houses) lower

quartile

923

86

1,015

94

1,015.71

94.36

1,066.50

99

Flats 10% external

works

0.1% Policy WLP

2 (Accessible

Dwellings)

5% Policy WLP

30

(Renewable

Energy)

£ per

sq m

£ per

sq ft

£ per

sq m

£ per

sq ft

£ per sq

m

£ per

sq ft

£ per sq

m

£ per

sq ft

Flats (generally)

median

1,220

113

1,342

125

1,343.34

124.80

1,410.51

131.04

7.27. A contingency allowance of 3% has also been added therefore resulting in the total build cost to

be:

• Small sites (less than 50 units) £1305 psm (£121 psf)

• Volume house builder (sites with more than 50 units) £1098 psm (£102 psf)

• Flats £1453 psm (£135 psf)

7.28. These build costs are inclusive of plot external works and the uplifts for policy standards.

Other development appraisal assumptions

7.29. Cushman & Wakefield have applied the following assumptions in the area wide viability modelling:

Other construction costs

7.30. Developers profit is calculated as a blended rate with 20% on market units and a lower rate of 8%

on affordable units. This reflects a contractor’s rate of profit for affordable units which assumes

they are transferred on completion to a registered provider reflecting less development risk for

the developer.



38

7.31. The blended profit rate fluctuates depending on the level of affordable housing. The table below

details the blended profit applied to development in each affordable housing scenario.

Developers profit - blended rate Profit on GDV

Market units profit on GDV 20%

Affordable units profit on GDV 8%

Blended profit rate 30% AH 17.71%



Section 106 and CIL allowance

7.32. The area wide viability model includes an allowance of £1,500 per unit towards Section 106 contributions, based upon recent Section 106 agreements for housing schemes in Wakefield which have been agreed since the introduction of CIL in 2016. The Section 106 allowance included in the area wide viability model is an average assumed per unit allowance. In practice, Section 106 contributions will be determined on a case by case basis. The average S106 allowance included in the model is intended to cover the following types of contribution, amongst others:

• Public open space contributions;

• Public realm;

• Community facilities;

• Transport infrastructure, including off-site highway works;

• Public transport;

• Air quality mitigation;

• Regeneration;

• Drainage, including off-site flood mitigation.

7.33. An allowance for CIL is included at prevailing rates for 2019 as detailed below and in accordance

with the plan below and the indexed linked charging rates for 2019:

• High Value Areas - £64.54 per sq m

• Medium Value Areas - £23.47 per sq m

• Low Value Areas - £0 per sq m

7.34. It should be noted that CIL costs have not been included in the viability model, but rather calculated as an output, thus allowing for the evidence documented to inform a review of the CIL charging schedule.



39

Figure 7.4: CIL Charging Zones, Wakefield

Development Timeline

7.35. In terms of development timescales, the area wide viability model includes a lead in period of six

months from the grant of planning permission and assumes an “oven ready” site free from the

need for significant abnormal works.

7.36. The cashflow profile provides for housing revenues to commencing six months after construction

starts on site with a sales rate of 2.5 units per month or 30 units per annum.

Benchmark Land Values

National Planning Practice Requirements

7.37. National Planning Practice Guidance requires that benchmark land value should

• Be based upon existing use value

• allow for a premium to landowners (including equity resulting from those building their

own homes)

• reflect the implications of abnormal costs; site-specific infrastructure costs; and

professional site fees

7.38. It also states that in plan making:

• The landowner premium should be tested and balanced against emerging policies.

• Existing use value should be informed by market evidence of current uses, costs and

values.

• Market evidence can also be used as a cross-check of benchmark land value but should

not be used in place of benchmark land value.

• Evidence should be based on developments that are fully policy compliant and where not

should be subject to adjustments

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/viability#para015



40

7.39. Significantly therefore, the guidance indicates that in plan making, there is discretion for local

authorities to adjust benchmark land values to accommodate emerging policy levels. However,

it is implicitly acknowledged that a careful balance must be struck so as to ensure that benchmark

values do not place land delivery at risk, and that land owners are appropriately incentivised to

bring land forward for development. Therefore, establishing an understanding of the minimum

levels that land owners require to bring forward land for development is an important component

in determining benchmark land values.

Existing Use Values (EUV)

7.40. EUV is the value of the land in its existing use and can represent either its sale value in existing

use (excluding hope) or development value where planning permission exists for a given use.

The existing use values of land brought forward for residential development in Wakefield are many

and varied depending on the status and use of the land. The main typologies of land are

brownfield former industrial sites, and greenfield land used for either amenity or agricultural

purposes. For the purposes of the area wide viability assessment, existing use values have been

simplified into these two categories for ease of attribution of benchmark EUV figures.

7.41. In relation to brownfield land, industrial land values have been researched to determine

appropriate EUV benchmarks to apply. Market values for industrial land vary significantly across

the District with the M62 motorway orientated sites around Normanton and Knottingley benefiting

from the recent spike in market activity in the logistics sector which is pushing land values well

above £740,000 per ha (£300,000 per acre). However elsewhere, industrial land values can be

much more modest depending on the quality of the land and its accessibility. Cushman &

Wakefield are aware of land transacting for as little as £247,100 per ha (£100,000 per acre) in

certain locations.

7.42. The DCLG publication Land value estimates for policy appraisal 2017 is referred to by National

Planning Practice Guidance as providing a guide for land values in Financial Viability

Assessments. This document identifies industrial land values for Leeds and Bradford in West

Yorkshire. For Leeds, the benchmark is £650,000 per ha (263,000 per acre) and for Bradford,

£500,000 per ha (202,000 per acre). These figures represent district wide averages

representative of serviced sites free from abnormals.

7.43. Within Wakefield, it is evident that industrial land being brought forward for residential

development is in the main of average to low quality industrial use and normally become obsolete

for employment purposes. Therefore, the EUV applied should be reflective of this position.

Having reviewed evidence of EUVs in site specific viability cases (which is summarise below) and

bearing in mind the above evidence, it is our view that a district wide EUV figure for brownfield

land should be benchmarked at £500,000 per ha (£202,000 per acre).

7.44. In relation to greenfield existing use values, having reviewed individual viability cases Cushman

& Wakefield are of the view that the DCLG figure for agricultural land value for the Leeds City

Region of £25,000 per ha (£10,000 per acre), represents a suitable benchmark for Existing Use

Value purposes. Having reviewed viability cases, Cushman & Wakefield have observed sites in

both agricultural and amenity use with EUVs at a similar level.

Premium

7.45. National Planning Practice Guidance makes it clear that the premium should provide a reasonable

incentive for a land owner to bring forward land for development while allowing a sufficient

contribution to fully comply with policy requirements.



41

7.46. Planning practice guidance states that:

• Market evidence can include benchmark land values from other viability assessments.

• Land transactions can be used but only as a cross check to the other evidence.

• Any data used should reasonably identify any adjustments necessary to reflect the cost of

policy compliance (including for affordable housing), or differences in the quality of land, site

scale, market performance of different building use types and reasonable expectations of

local landowners.

7.47. Cushman & Wakefield has collected transactional evidence based on a number of recent

developments that have transacted and been through the planning process over the last 18

months in Wakefield (dated 2018/2019). Actual price data has been gathered from the Land

registry and evidence of site abnormals collected from site specific viability studies.

7.48. The evidence indicates that:

• The range of land values achieved across the District is from £288,000 per ha (116,000

per acre) to £1.67million per ha (£676,000 per acre)

• Many of these sites are not policy compliant and with high abnormal development cost –

therefore following NPPG this indicates that an adjustment would be required of these

figures if used for benchmark land value purposes

• Excluding non-policy compliant schemes, this indicates a range of £288,609 per ha

(£117,000 per acre) to £1.388million (£541,000 per acre)

• There is a relationship between the market values and premiums depending on market

strength of the location – in higher value areas, greater land owner premiums are evident

and vice versa, which reflects the realities of how prices are determined with greater

demand for land in higher value areas bidding up prices.

• Market values for greenfield sites are indicated as 10 to 28 times existing use value,

although Cushman & Wakefield are aware of higher levels achieved in the higher value

parts of the District

• Brownfield land premiums are up to 3 times existing use value achieved although in some

lower value areas, a negative uplift is indicated (NB this is the result of an incorrect

representation of the real EUV as in such circumstances the EUV would have been below

the transacted value).



42

7.49. Further evidence from Council owned land transactions where surplus sites have been sold for

housing over 2018/2019 is provided below:

7.50. This evidence shows:

• The range of land values is from £261,000 per ha (£105,000 per acre) to 904,000 per ha

(£366,000 per acre)

• The majority of these sites are affordable housing policy compliant which may explain

why the range and tone of average land values are below the range provided by land

registry evidence above thus representing a more reliable basis for sense-checking

benchmark land values for policy making purposes

• This confirms greenfield land premiums in the order of 20 to 30 times EUV and for

brownfield, many of these sites again transacting for lower than the EUV levels indicated

(as stated above, the actual EUV on these sites was likely to have been significantly

below the benchmark EUV figures applied in the table which is a simple area wide

assumed EUV pinned at general industrial land values).

Benchmark land value evidence

7.51. As a further check Cushman & Wakefield have reviewed benchmark land values applied in site

specific viability studies relating to S106 negotiations across Wakefield District. Cushman &

Wakefield have sampled the same sites as those for which land registry data was collected. The

benchmark land values below are those that have been validated by an independent viability

study on behalf of Wakefield District Council reviewing the applicant’s own Financial Viability

Assessment:



43

7.52. The results indicate a range of benchmark values from £375,000 per ha (£152,000 per acre) to

£1.28million (517,000 per acre). This range is below the actual transacted prices for these sites

indicating an acceptance that benchmark land values can be discounted from market values to

allow for policy requirements and above-average abnormal site costs.

7.53. The viability evidence in support of the current Wakefield wide Community Infrastructure Levy

Charging schedule has the following benchmark land values

• High Value - £864,850 per ha (£325,000 per acre)

• Medium Value £617,750 per ha (£250,000 per acre)

7.54. Given the precedent established in this study, these benchmarks are also a useful guide to

determining appropriate benchmark rates.

Proposed benchmark land values

7.55. Taking into account the above, Cushman & Wakefield have recommended the following

benchmark land values, which have been attributed to each of the different value areas and

compared these against both market evidence and evidence of site-specific benchmark land

values (which have been averaged across multiple schemes researched).



44

7.56. Regard has been given to market evidence of the premiums that have been achieved to ensure

that the ultimate benchmarks align with land owners’ expectations and do not put the delivery of

sites to the market at risk.

7.57. However, this has been balanced by the need to consider the Council’s emerging policies in the

draft Local Plan and to ensure that historic transactional evidence from schemes with non

compliant policy standards do not inflate the benchmarks to an unreasonable level.

7.58. The benchmarks are also cross checked against the benchmark land values that have been

applied in site specific viability cases within Wakefield and accord broadly with this evidence and

have also been tested through consultation with land owners and developers, at which no adverse

representations have been received.

Abnormal site development cost allowance

7.59. National Planning Practice Guidance makes it clear that all development costs should be included

in assessing viability for the purposes of plan making. It is therefore considered appropriate that

an allowance is made for abnormal site development costs. Whilst there is no commonly

accepted definition for such costs, for the purposes of this viability evidence, abnormals include

the following:

• Site remediation such as demolition, clearance or decontamination

• Strategic infrastructure such as spine roads, utility enforcements, strategic drainage or

green infrastructure over and above that allowed for in plot external works costs

• Any other unforeseen or unusual site infrastructure.

7.60. The challenge for an area wide study is that abnormal site costs vary from site to site, are entirely

dependent on the individual circumstances affecting each site and therefore to make general

allowances risks either over or under representing the likely real costs that sites will encounter.

The sites that are proposed as part of the Local Plan include greenfield and brownfield and the

circumstances affecting each site are different. It is a common misconception that greenfield

sites, with the frequent requirements for site works and drainage attenuation requirements, face

less abnormal site costs than brownfield sites which, provided they have been cleared of buildings

and remediated of any contamination can have relatively low abnormal costs. A further nuance

concerns the fact that there is a close relationship between land values and abnormals, since the

amount that any rational developer will pay for the site will be linked to its condition and the amount

of expense that the developer will need to incur in making it development ready.

7.61. In the Wakefield CIL Viability Evidence, an allowance of £247,100 per ha (£100,000 per acre)

was made which was considered to represent a typical level of abnormals. It is proposed that the

same rate is applied in the area wide model. It is acknowledged that the amount of abnormal site

development costs could be in excess of this figure however in this event it is considered that it

would result in an equivalent downwards adjustment in the land value payable; that is to say

effectively the benchmark land values set out above assume that the developer will have to meet

an abnormal site development cost equivalent to £247,100 per ha.



45

8. Area Wide Viability Assessment - Results

8.1. This section displays the results of the area wide modelling of the hypothetical schemes based

on the assumptions set out in Section 7 above. There is a single results table for each affordable

housing scenario (30%, 20% and 10%). The tables display the residual land value generated for

each site, deducted from which is the land value benchmark and the allowance for site abnormal

development costs. The residual amount is then expressed on the basis of £psm of the market

floor area, to inform a position as to the level of CIL which schemes can afford given the other

planning standards (i.e. the affordable housing, S106, cost uplifts for policy standards) that are

built into the appraisals.

30% Affordable housing

8.2. Table 8.1 displays the results of the area wide model at the 30% affordable housing scenario. All

other policy standards have been incorporated into the appraisals. The results demonstrate

significant variations between schemes and across different value areas.

8.3. There is a general trend which shows the smallest schemes of 1 ha being at the margins of

viability across all areas when a 30% affordable housing policy is applied. This is due to the

higher build cost affecting smaller house builders which is reflected in the area wide model build

cost rate assumptions.

8.4. Across the three different densities, 40 DPH sites deliver the best results, followed by 30 DPH

site, and then 50 DPH sites. This is explained by the fact that 40 DPH maximises floor area

coverage whilst avoiding the need for more costly flatted developments in the 50 DPH scenario.

The 30 DPH sites generate a lower level of floor coverage per ha / per acre than the 40 DPH

sites, thus performing less well, and the 50 DPH sites lesser still due to the higher build costs that

are encountered on flatted development at this density.

8.5. The medium sized schemes (2, 6 and 10, 2.5ha each) perform better than the larger sites (3, 4,

7, 8, 11, 12 – 5 ha and 10 ha variants), which is due to the prolonged cashflow of larger schemes

in respect of the time between land purchase (at the outset of the development programme) and

return on capital (gradual throughout the sales period). In practice, house builders would generally

be able to negotiate phased payments / draw down of land in a way that mitigates the impact on

cashflow of high upfront land payments, therefore, the medium sized scheme that delivers 75 to

125 units (depending on the density scenario), provides the most realistic guide to the actual

viability position.

8.6. Looking at the differences across the value areas, the majority of schemes are viable at 30%

affordable housing in Value Area 1 and Value Area 2, but only the highest performing schemes

of 40 DPH are viable in Value Area 3 and even these are unviable in Value Area 4. The 1 ha

schemes, exposed to higher build cost, are shown to be marginally viable even in Value Area 1

and 2.

8.7. These results suggest that Affordable Housing of 30% is viable in Value Area 1 delivering the

potential for a CIL tariff up to an average of circa £100psm, but in Value Area 2 it is marginally

viable delivering the potential or a CIL tariff up to approximately £30psm. It remains that the

smaller schemes of 1 ha are indicated to be marginally viable and whilst smaller house builders

may operate off lower profit margins than that allowed for in our appraisals, consideration is

required as to how to mitigate the impact of policy standards on this category of house builder.



46

Table 8.1: Viability Results at 30% Affordable Housing



47


8.8. Table 8.2 overleaf displays the results of the area wide modelling at 20% affordable housing. This

reflects a similar pattern of results to that presented above for 30% affordable housing, but with

an increased level of viability. The results indicate that the majority of schemes in Value Areas

1-3 are able to support a 20% affordable housing requirement with the higher value sensitivity of

£2,476 psm (£230 psf) showing increased headroom capacity with 20% affordable housing. In

respect of Value Area 3, the higher density schemes become marginally viable however the

majority are shown to be viable with an average maximum CIL headroom of approximately

£20psm. Value Area 4 shows consistently negative results across all scheme types at 20%

affordable housing.



48




49


8.9. Table 8.3 displays the results of the viability model at 10% affordable housing. In respect of Value

Area 4, only the 40 DPH schemes are able to support an affordable housing rate of 10%, with the

lower and high density schemes (30 DPH and 50DPH) and small scheme (1 ha) unviable at this

level of affordable housing. Given that marginal viability at this level, consideration is required as

to how to mitigate viability assuming a minimum level of affordable housing of 10% will be

required.



50




51

Policy Implications

8.10. The results of the area wide appraisals indicate that as expected viability varies significantly

according to market strength of different sub markets and the individual components of schemes

such as density, scheme size and build cost. It is clear that not all parts of the District can viably

withstand an affordable housing level of 30% when set alongside the other policy standards and

expectations for continuing with at least current CIL tariff rates. This does reflect the reality of

experience in recent years with an average affordable housing level of circa 20% being achieved

despite the pre-existing policy set at a target rate of 30%. In view of the recent changes to national

planning policy as documented in the NPPF and NPPG which indicate a move away from

unachievable ‘target’ rates, consideration is therefore required to adjusting affordable housing

targets to levels which align more closely with the viability evidence. In this regard it is considered

most appropriate that the Council should move towards setting variable rates of affordable

housing requirements across the District which align with the evidence base documented.

8.11. The setting of variable rates reflects the practice of most neighbouring local authorities including

Leeds, Bradford and Selby. Whilst Kirklees is an exception with an adopted target rate of 20%

District wide, the Kirklees Local Plan was adopted prior to the publication of the revised NPPF

and NPPG which marks a move away from this approach.

8.12. The range of affordable housing levels tested for Wakefield District (10%-30%) are considered to

represent a suitable basis and whilst the highest value areas indicate that 30% could be readily

achieved alongside the potential for a CIL overage above the current CIL charging level, it is not

considered that the level of headroom is such as to justify pushing the affordable housing levels

beyond 30%. 30% is therefore recommended as the upper limit and only applied in those

locations that are demonstrated to be capable of viably delivering such a level.

8.13. The main consideration relates to the affordable housing levels that should be attributed to the

mid value locations (i.e. Value Areas 2 and 3). Value Area 2 indicates the ability to meet an

affordable housing level of 30%, although with limited headroom for CIL. Value Area 3 cannot

realistically deliver an affordable housing level of 30%, and even at 20% there are indicated to be

viability issues for some site typologies.

8.14. The lowest value area (Value Area 4), which includes areas of the South East of the District as

well as Knottingley and Wakefield City Centre, are shown to be marginally viable even at 10%

affordable housing and therefore consideration as to how the viability could be mitigated in the

application of policy requirements in these locations.

Policy Scenarios

8.15. Two scenarios are proposed for the Council’s consideration as outlined in Table 8.4 below. These

are differentiated by the rate of affordable housing required in Value Area 3 and 4 and the residual

headroom for a CIL charge. Policy Scenario 1 proposes 10% AH in Value Area 3 and 0% in

Value Area 4 and Policy Scenario 2 proposes 20% affordable housing in Value Area 3 and 10%

in Value Area 4.

8.16. In respect of CIL, Table 8.5 below indicates the extent of compliance of the individual affordable

housing scenarios by comparing the CIL headroom for each to the current applicable CIL tariff.

Because the zones do not precisely align with the Value Areas of this assessment, Value Area 2

and 3 cross more than one CIL zone and therefore different CIL tariffs will apply depending on

postal district. The table is RAG rated to display the relevant compliance and as it indicates Policy

Scenario 2 is indicated to be at risk; that is to say that in Value 3, schemes may struggle to deliver

both 20% affordable housing and CIL of £20psm (NB and note that the actual CIL rate will be

higher due to indexing).



52

Table 8.4 Policy Scenarios


Affordable

housing Policy cost

uplift

Max Average


Affordable housing

Policy cost

uplift

Max Average






Table 8.5 Policy Scenarios and Compliance with Existing CIL Charging Schedule


Max headroom

for CIL (£psm)

CIL Charging Schedule

Zone Applicable

CIL rate

Max headroom

for CIL (£psm)

Value area 1 High £50 psm £92 High £50 psm £92

Value area 2 Medium /

High £20 and £55

psm £105 Medium /

High £20 and £55 psm £105

Value area 3 Low /

Medium 0 & £20psm £31 Low /

Medium 0 &

£20psm £19

Value area 4 Low 0 £0 Low 0 -£8



53


consideration is required to not only the deliverability of CIL alongside affordable housing but also

the sensitivities relating to possible variation to key appraisal inputs, in particular site development

costs and abnormals. Policy Scenario 1 should be interpreted as a ‘safer’ position that would

ensure greater level of resilience of the policy against the need for individual exceptions to be

considered through the Development Management process.

8.18. The following chapter sets out the results of the strategic site assessments to test the impact of

the above policy scenarios on specific site allocations for which we have the benefit of actual site

development infrastructure and abnormal cost information.



54

9. Strategic Sites Financial Viability Assessment

9.1. Cushman & Wakefield have supplemented the area wide viability assessment of hypothetical

schemes with the testing of real development sites. Strategic sites have been selected from the

Draft Local Plan allocations.

9.2. Given the new guidance places an expectation and responsibility on the part of site promoters to

engage in the plan making stage; Wakefield Council invited all promoters of residential

development sites across the district to submit information regarding their development

proposals. A standard template was issued, and site promoters were invited to complete this so

that their sites could be assessed. This information was requested so that the Council could

select a sample of strategic sites for viability testing and obtain the necessary evidence to ensure

that the policies in Wakefield Local Plan are realistic and deliverable.

9.3. Cushman & Wakefield received information on 45 strategic sites across the district from site

promoters. Based on the information provided by site promoters, a shortlist of eight sites was

proposed by Cushman & Wakefield and subsequently agreed by the Council. The shortlisted

sites were selected as they represented examples of strategic residential development sites

within a range of property value areas and were representative of both greenfield and brownfield

developments and capable of delivering a minimum of 100 units.

9.4. The following plan identifies the location of the strategic sites and the table provides the address,

site size and value area:

Figure 4.3: Location of Strategic Sites



55

Map

ref.

Local Plan Site

Reference and

Name

Site Address Site Size

(ha)

Units Greenfield

/Brownfield

1 LP510: Land North of

St Andrews Road,

Fryston

St Andrew's Road,

Fryston, Castleford,

WF10 2QT

1.5 (net) 60 Greenfield

2 LP112: Former

Prince of Wales

Colliery, Pontefract

Prince of Wales Colliery,

Pontefract, Parkside

Hotel, WF7 5NL

3.75 (net) 150 Mixed

3 LP177: Oxiris

Chemical Works and

Land Adjoining

Common Lane,

Knottingley

Common Lane (Oxiris

Chemical Works),

Knottingley, WF11 8BN

Gross

12.21

Net 9.85

313 Mixed

4 LP39: Land West of

Wakefield Road,

Normanton

Land West Wakefield

Road Normanton, WF6

2JA

Net 10.52 380 Greenfield

5 LP51: Land off

Lingwell Gate Lane,

Lofthouse Gate,

Wakefield

Land off Lingwell Gate

Lane, Lofthouse Gate,

WF3 3JZ

Gross 2.4

Net 2

74 Mixed

6 LP96: Land at Holme

Farm, Carleton,

Pontefract

Holme Farm, Carleton,

Pontefract, WF8 3RX

Net 5.26 240 Greenfield

7 LP775: Land South

East of Knottingley

(part of)

Darrington Quarry,

WF11 0AH

Gross 38

Net 25

541 Brownfield

8 LP21: Land East of

Wakefield Road,

Hemsworth

Land east of Wakefield

Road, Hemsworth, WF9

5LJ

Gross 11

Net 8

220 Greenfield

9 LP764: Land North of

Broad Lane, South

Kirkby

Land North of Broad

Lane, South Kirkby,

WF9 3QN

2.3 (LP764

states that

the

allocation

area is

50.51ha.

C&W have

applied a

69 Greenfield



56

Table 9.1: Sampled Strategic Sites

9.5. The viability of the strategic sites has been assessed using Argus Developer software which is

an industry standard software model for development appraisal and valuation.

9.6. The development appraisal assumptions provided by the site promoters have been objectively

assessed and adjusted where appropriate to ensure robustness. In so doing, regard has been

had to the assumptions base set out within this report to benchmark the inputs proposed by the

site promoters and make adjustments where appropriate. The main differences between the area

wide assumptions are:

• Proposed housing mix, size, density and associated phasing and development programme.

Where promoters have prepared masterplans for sites these have taken precedence over

the area wide assumptions with minimal if any adjustment particularly where housing

builders are promoting sites and have put forward their scheme proposals.

• Community Infrastructure Levy, which has been inserted as a cost at the applicable charge

rate as set out in the current CIL Charging Schedule

• Site development, infrastructure and abnormal costs. C&W has supplemented the

evidence base for specific sites through a specialist cost study prepared by Bentley Project

Management which identifies indicative cost estimates for the following categories for each

site:2

▪ Off site highways

▪ On site highways (over and above standard estate roads)

▪ Earthworks

▪ Off site utilities

▪ Utility diversions

▪ Drainage

▪ Site Development abnormals

▪ Foundation and retaining walls

▪ On site public open space

2 The abnormal costs estimates provided by Bentley Project Management for Site 9, Land north of Broad Lane, were

based on the Council’s original housing delivery trajectory projections for the site of 606 residential units. As the

proposal put forward by the site promoter (Production Park) includes a wider range of specialist uses, and the quantum

of estate housing proposed as a part of the development is considerably lower, the abnormal cost estimates provided by

Bentley Project Management have been excluded from the appraisal. It is assumed that the traditional residential

element of the proposed development would be serviced by the site promoter as part of works to deliver the other

specialist uses proposed at the site.

residential

density

assumption

of 30 dph

to estimate

the gross

site area

required for

the

residential

element of

the

scheme).



57

9.7. The development appraisal assumptions for the strategic sites are presented at Appendix 4 and

the viability appraisals for each site at Appendix 5. Infrastructure and abnormal cost assumptions

have been provided by Bentley Project Management. The cost plan is appended to the report at

Appendix 6.

Results

9.8. The results of the strategic site appraisals are set out in Table 9.2 overleaf. The table summarises

the residual land value for each site, the affordable housing scenario that has been applied, the

benchmark land value and the surplus / deficit against this benchmark (a negative figure indicating

that the affordable housing level is not viable and a positive one that it is).

9.9. A number of iterations and sensitivities have been produced of these sites with different affordable

housing scenarios. The appraisal results summarised below are based on Policy Scenario 1

(30% in Value Area 1, 20% in Value Area 2, 10% in Value Area 3 and 0% in Value Area 4). Policy

Scenario 2 was also modelled however many of the schemes in Value Area 3 and 4 were

indicated to be unviable at the higher rate of affordable housing which was applied.

9.10. The results show that those sites in Value Area 1 and Value Area 2 are viable and generate a

significant surplus with an affordable housing policy level of 30% in Value Area 1 and 20% in

Value Area 2. For the two sites in Value Area 3 with the application of 10% affordable housing,

one generated a significant deficit (Land West of Wakefield Road, Normanton) and the other a

small surplus (St Andrew’s Road, Fryston), The site which generated a deficit, Land West of

Wakefield Road, Normanton, is exposed to a significant level of abnormal development costs

which at the revenues achievable within this location indicate the potential for difficulties in

meeting planning obligations. The sites that are within Value Area 4 were modelled with no

affordable housing level and even without affordable housing fail to meet the benchmark land

value applied, with the exception of Site 9, Land to the North of Broad Lane, where abnormal

costs were excluded from the appraisal. It should be noted that the other Value Area 4 sites are

exposed to substantial site abnormal costs and as such it would be reasonable to expect that the

land owner’s return could be reduced to a lower level than the benchmark on account of the high

abnormal development costs.

Policy Implications

9.11. The site-specific appraisals support the first of the two affordable housing policy scenarios set out

in Section 8 above. The schemes support affordable housing levels of 30% and 20% in Value

Area 1 and Value Area 2 respectively. In respect of Value Area 3 and Value Area 4, the existence

of relatively high abnormal site costs and a lower level of sales revenue indicate more difficulty in

meeting the higher levels of affordable housing proposed by Policy Scenario 2. Whilst the high

abnormal development costs would to some extent be accommodated by way of a reduction in

the land owner’s return, the policy scenario in which 10% affordable housing applies in Value

Area 3 and 0% in Value Area 4 (as opposed to 20% and 10% respectively) more accurately aligns

with the site specific viability assessments.



58

Table 9.2: Strategic Site Appraisal Results

Site Value

Area

Net Area

(Ha)

Developer

Assumptions

Unit

Numbers

Residual

Land Value

Benchmark

Land Value

Surplus/Deficit

Holme

Farm,

Carleton

1 5.26 240 £5,621,759 £4,549,111 £1,072,648

Lingwell

Gate Ln,

Lofthouse

1 2 74 £1,762,522 £1,729,700 £32,822

Parkside

Hotel,

Pontefract

2 3.75 150 £2,555,903 £2,316,563 £239,341

Land West

of

Wakefield

Rd,

Normanton

3 10.52 380 £3,482,045 £5,198,984 -£1,716,939

St Andrews

Rd, Fryston

3 1.5 60 £792,924 £741,300 £51,624

Land East

of

Wakefield

Rd,

Hemsworth

4 8 220 £965,213 £2,965,200 -£1,999,987

Common

Ln,

Knottingley

4 9.85 313 £1,545,983 £3,650,903 -£2,104,920

Darrington

Quarry

4 25 541 £4,378,606 £9,266,250 -£4,887,644

Land North

of Broad

Lane

4 2.3 69 £1,442,373 £852,495

£589,878



59

10. Conclusions and Recommendations

Key Findings

10.1. The evidence contained within this report demonstrates that viability varies significantly according

to the market strength of sub markets and the individual components of schemes such as density,

scheme size and build cost.

10.2. It is clear that not all parts of the District can viably withstand an affordable housing level of 30%

when set alongside the other policy standards and expectations for continuing with at least current

CIL tariff rates. This reflects the reality of experience in recent years with an average affordable

housing level of circa 20% being achieved despite the pre-existing policy set at a target rate of

30%, with a range of precedents from 0% to 30% being accepted on viability grounds according

to the individual circumstances of sites.

10.3. In view of the recent changes to national planning policy as documented in the NPPF and NPPG

which indicate a move away from unachievable ‘target’ rates, consideration is therefore required

to adjusting affordable housing targets to levels which align more closely with the viability

evidence. In this regard it is considered most appropriate that the Council should move towards

setting variable rates of affordable housing requirements across the District which align with the

evidence base documented.

10.4. The setting of variable rates reflects the practice of most neighbouring local authorities including

Leeds, Bradford and Selby. Whilst Kirklees is an exception with an adopted target rate of 20%

District wide, the Kirklees Local Plan was adopted prior to the publication of the revised NPPF

and NPPG which marks a move away from this approach.

10.5. The range of affordable housing levels tested for Wakefield District (10%-30%) are considered to

represent a suitable basis and whilst the highest value areas indicate that 30% could be readily

achieved alongside the potential for a CIL overage above the current CIL charging level, it is not

considered that the level of headroom is such as to justify pushing the affordable housing levels

beyond 30%. 30% is therefore recommended as the upper limit and only applied in those

locations that are demonstrated to be capable of viably delivering such a level.

10.6. The main consideration relates to the affordable housing levels that should be attributed to the

mid value locations (i.e. Value Areas 2 and 3). Value Area 2 indicates the ability to meet an

affordable housing level of 30% for certain sites and scheme typologies and densities, but not for

all, and there is also a threat to the existing CIL charging rate if 30% affordable housing were to

be applied across Value Area 2. Value Area 3 cannot realistically deliver an affordable housing

level of 30%, and even at 20% there are indicated to be viability issues for some site typologies.

10.7. The lowest value area (Value Area 4), which includes areas of the South East of the District as

well as Knottingley and Wakefield City Centre, are shown to be marginally viable even at 10%

affordable housing and therefore consideration as to how the viability could be mitigated in the

application of policy requirements in these locations. The strategic sites that were sampled from

this area were indicated to be unable to meet the 10% affordable housing level because of the

combination of low sales revenues and high abnormal development costs.



60

Policy Scenarios

10.8. As a result of the above, it is considered that two affordable housing policy scenarios could be

considered for application in the Local Plan:

Table 8.4 Policy Scenarios


Affordable

housing

Policy cost

uplift

Max Average


Affordable housing

Policy cost

uplift

Max Average headroo

m for CIL (£psm)






consideration is required to not only the deliverability of CIL alongside affordable housing (in Value

Area 3, the average CIL headroom of £19 psm indicates that some schemes would be unviable

at the current CIL charging rate of £20 psm) but also the sensitivities relating to possible variation

to key appraisal inputs, in particular site development costs and abnormals. The sampling of

actual sites and the commissioning of bespoke site infrastructure and abnormal cost plans has

underlined the risks around viability within the mid and lower value locations across Wakefield.

10.10. Policy Scenario 1 should be interpreted as a ‘safer’ position that would ensure greater level of

resilience of the policy against the need for frequent individual exceptions to be considered

through the Development Management process. This scenario could also enable a higher level

of CIL to be charged than under the current Wakefield CIL Charging Schedule.

10.11. It should be noted that, as outlined in the NPPF, there may be some circumstances where a

viability appraisal at the decision-making stage may be appropriate to support deviation from

policy requirements. It is also recommended that as part of the legal requirement to assess

whether the local plan needs updating at least once every five years the affordable housing policy

is reviewed, given the sensitivities around key variables and market cycles.



61

11. Disclaimer

11.1. The contents of this report do not constitute a valuation, in accordance with the appropriate

sections of the Valuation Technical and Performance Standards (“VPS”)) contained within the

RICS Valuation – Global Standards 2017 (the “Red Book”) and the RICS Valuation – Global

Standards 2017 – UK National Supplement (effective 14th January 2019). This report is for the

purpose of the addressee and, with the exception of the Executive Summary, its contents should

not be reproduced in part or in full without our prior consent.

11.2. Signed for and on behalf of Cushman & Wakefield Debenham Tie Leung Limited.

Stephen Miles

Partner

+44 (0) 113 233 7471

[email protected]

Date: December 2019

mailto:[email protected]


Appendix 1: Attendees at Stakeholder consultation event June 2019


62

APPENDIX 1: ATTENDEES AT STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION EVENT JUNE 2019

Attendee Representing Organisation / Site

Brian Reynolds Gleeson Homes

Matt Smith Gleeson Homes

Tim Williams Concept Town Planning

Brian Bird Brimstry Ltd

David Newton St Pauls Developments / St Pauls

Jill Lomax Banks Property

Nigel Chambers Tangent / ION

Adam Riding Taylor Wimpey / TW

Jennifer Winyard Barratt & David Wilson Homes

Jo Hill Wakefield Council – Regeneration

Dave Griffiths Wakefield Council – Regeneration

Neil Wallace Natural Resource Planning

Alec Michael DS Planning

Emma Cordingley CDP

Daniel Starkey Spawforths

Jonathan Dunbavin ID Planning / PLD

Mark Johnson Johnson Mowatt

Matthew Wise Aspinal Verdi

Graham Orr WDH

Rob Ormrod Banks Property

George Oldroyd Banks Property

Guy Titchmarsh Titchmarsh & Bagley

Emma Winter Carter Jonas

Richard Bailey Gateley Plc / Newmarket


Appendix 1: Attendees at Stakeholder consultation event June 2019


63

Attendee Representing Organisation / Site

Clare Plant DLP Planning / Keepmoat, Onward

Mark Jones Barratt & David Wilson Homes

Miranda Bell CDP / CDP

Paul Mercer Mercer & Co / St Pauls Developments


Appendix 2: Questionnaire Survey Wakefield Council Local Plan Viability Evidence Base

64

APPENDIX 2: QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY

WAKEFIELD LOCAL PLAN VIABILITY

Stakeholder Questionnaire Survey

Wakefield Council DEVELOPMENT & PLANNING | LEEDS

June 2019

asd

Wakefield Local Plan Viability

Wakefield Council I Cushman & Wakefield I 2

Do you agree with the viability testing

methodology?

If not, please give your comments.

Area wide hypothetical schemes

Do the selection of site sizes, density, housing

mix and floor areas proposed reflect an

appropriate range for area wide viability

testing?

If not, please state appropriate alternatives.

Net

(Hectares)

Net

(acres)

1 bed

flat

2 bed

flat

2 bed

house

3 bed

house

4 bed

house

5 bed

house

Sq m Sq ft Sq m per

ha

Sq ft

per acre

Scheme 1 1 2.47 30 30 0% 0% 15% 40% 30% 15% 3,042 32,744 3,042 13,251

Scheme 2 2.5 6.18 30 75 0% 0% 15% 40% 30% 15% 7,605 81,859 3,042 13,251

Scheme 3 5 12.36 30 150 0% 0% 15% 40% 30% 15% 15,210 163,719 3,042 13,251

Scheme 4 10 24.71 30 300 0% 0% 15% 40% 30% 15% 30,420 327,438 3,042 13,251

Scheme 5 1 2.47 40 40 0% 0% 30% 50% 20% 0% 3,620 38,965 3,620 15,768

Scheme 6 2.5 6.18 40 100 0% 0% 30% 50% 20% 0% 9,050 97,413 3,620 15,768

Scheme 7 5 12.36 40 200 0% 0% 30% 50% 20% 0% 18,100 194,827 3,620 15,768

Scheme 8 10 24.71 40 400 0% 0% 30% 50% 20% 0% 36,200 389,653 3,620 15,768

Scheme 9 1 2.47 50 50 10% 15% 40% 35% 0% 0% 3,735 40,203 3,735 16,269

Scheme 10 2.5 6.18 50 125 10% 15% 40% 35% 0% 0% 9,338 100,508 3,735 16,269

Scheme 11 5 12.36 50 250 10% 15% 40% 35% 0% 0% 18,675 201,016 3,735 16,269

Scheme 12 10 24.71 50 500 10% 15% 40% 35% 0% 0% 37,350 402,032 3,735 16,269

Housing mix % Built floor areaDevelopable area

Density

(DPH)

No of

units



Unit Sizes

Do you agree with the proposed residential

unit sizes which are based on DCLG Technical

Housing Standards - Nationally Described

Space Standard DCLG, March 2015?

If not, please state appropriate unit sizes

Do you agree with the areas of market strength

across the District?

If you consider there are other market areas

that are not considered which you feel should

be incorporated in this study, please state

them.

Unit size sq m sq ft



2 bed house (4 person) 2 storey 70 753






Value Areas

Do you agree with the sales value assumptions

which are based four key values areas?

If not, please state why and provide

alternatives.

Build Costs

Do you agree with our assumptions on build

costs which are based on BCIS data rebased

to Yorkshire and Humber (last five years data)


alternatives.

Policy Standards

The main policy standards with potential to impact on development viability include:

• WSP3 & WSP5 - Implications of Spatial Development Strategy and related housing

markets.

• WSP5 Density implications.

• WSP6 - Affordable Housing – implications of different models, possibility of variable

rates?

• WLP2 - Accessible Housing Standards

What is your experience of the impact on build

costs that such policy standards have?

Sales revenues £ per sq m £ per sq ft

Value area 1 2,583 240




Estate Housing (generally)£ per sq m £ per sq ft

£ per sq

m

£ per sq

ft

£ per sq

m

£ per sq

ft

<50 dwellings (houses) median 1,091 101 n/a n/a 1,200 111

>50 dwellings (houses) lower quartile 971 90 922 86 1,015 94

Flats

£ per sq m £ per sq ft£ per sq

m

£ per sq

ft

Flats (generally) median 1,220 113 1,342 125

baseline

10% uplift external

works

Lower Quartile less

5% for > 50 unitsBaseline

10% uplift external

works



• WLP3 - Minimum Space Standards for Homes

• WLP46 - Public Open Space

• WLP30 Renewable Energy (10% of energy needs) and WLP31 Sustainable

Construction (TER and BREEAM excellent)

• WLP34 District Heat Networks

• WLP32 EVC Points

• WLP26 – Transport

• Variable CIL Rates (currently in adopted Charging schedule for resi, retail

warehouses and large supermarkets)

• Education – currently covered by CIL, education have a methodology for working

out the cost

• Health – generally covered by CIL unless there has been a site specific requirement

identified in the LP

Other development costs

Please detail whether you agree with the

assumptions proposed in terms of other

development costs.


alternatives.

Other construction costs

Professional fees including planning

Contingencies

Maketing, sales agent and legal fees

Purchasers costs

Finance

8% on construction

3% on construction

3.5% of sales revenue

6.8% on purchase price

6% debt funding rate



Development Phasing

Please detail if you agree with our phasing

assumptions.

If not, please state why and provide alternative

timescales.

Developer Profit

Do you agree with our approach to testing

viability including a blended rate for developer

profit? If not, please state why.

Section 106 and CIL allowance

Do you agree with our assumption of including

an allowance of £1,500 per unit for Section 106

contributions, in addition to CIL. This is based

on a review of Section 106 Agreements since

was introduced in 2016.

Affordable Housing tenure mix and transfer values

Please state if you agree with the affordable

housing transfer values. If you do not agree,

please kindly state alternatives

Delivery assumptions

Lead in period

Construction sales

Sales rates

Six months from the grant of planning permission

Sales staggered six months after construction starts

30 units per annum per outlet (2.5 units per month)

Developers profit - blended rate Profit on

GDV

Market units profit on GDV 20%

Affordable units profit on GDV 8%


Section 106 costs

CIL

High

Medium

Low £0 per sq m

£64.54 per sq m

£23.47 per sq m

£1,500 per unit

2018/19 Transfer values

45% of open market value

65% of open market value

50% rented

50% owner occupied products (shared ownership)

Affordable Housing Tenure Mix



Abnormal Costs

The Wakefield CIL Viability Study proposed £296,500 per ha (£120,000 per acre) as an

allowance for abnormal site development costs

It is proposed that this sum is applied in the area wide model as an allowance for a

reasonable level of abnormal site development costs

Do you consider our allowance for abnormal

costs is a fair assumption to make for area

wide viability testing? If not, please state why

and provide alternative values

Benchmark Land Values

Evidence suggests benchmark land value of £494,000 per ha (£200,000 per acre –

unserviced /unremediated)

£617,750 per ha (£250,000 per acre) established as central position in Wakefield CIL

Viability Study

Alignment with new guidance implies differentiation between greenfield and brownfield

due to differences in EUV / AUVs

o EUV for greenfield £25,000 per ha (£10,117 per acre – agricultural)

o EUV / AUV for brownfield £650,000 per ha (£263,000 per acre industrial)

What do you consider to be appropriate

benchmark land values?

What is the appropriate level of premium for

landowners return?



Through this consultation, Cushman & Wakefield on behalf of Wakefield Council is seeking to confirm the parameters and principles that are to be used in the viability modelling and allow the opportunity for feedback and amendment to our proposed development assumptions prior to the commencement of viability modelling. We aim to follow a process which is as robust and transparent and one which has been consulted on with developers, landowners and other key stakeholders. In order to keep an accurate record of respondents, please complete the details below. We will not attribute your name, the name of your organisation or the details of any responses above without your express permission. Many thanks for your comments which are greatly appreciated. Name: Position: Company: Address: Postcode: Contact Telephone: Email Address: May we contact you further? YES NO

Please provide your responses in the boxes provided and return the questionnaire no later than 30th

June 2019, via post or email to:

Stephanie Hiscott Cushman & Wakefield St Paul’s House 23 Park Square South Leeds LS1 2ND [email protected] Tel: 0113 233 7470 Fax: 0113 244 1637



Cushman & Wakefield

St Paul’s House

23 Park Square South

Leeds LS1 2ND

About Cushman & Wakefield

Cushman & Wakefield is a leading global real estate

services firm that helps clients transform the way people

work, shop and live. The firm's 45,000 employees in

more than 60 countries provide deep local and global

insights that create significant value for our clients.

Cushman & Wakefield is among the largest commercial

real estate services firms, with core services of agency

leasing, asset services, capital markets, facility services,

global occupier services, investment & asset

management (DTZ Investors), project & development

services, tenant representation and valuation &

advisory.

To learn more, visit www.cushmanwakefield.com

or follow @CushWake on Twitter.

© Cushman & Wakefield 2019


Appendix 3: Key Variances in responses from consultees to viability assumptions


65

APPENDIX 3: KEY VARIANCES IN RESPONSES FROM CONSULTEES TO VIABILITY ASSUMPTIONS

Stakeholder Areas of Variance with Assumptions Proposed by C&W

Gleeson • Do not agree with adopting unit sizes which are based on NDS standards, believes these standards would lead to the development being too expensive for consumers, would suggest the following assumptions;

o 2 bed, 2 storey semi-detached – 664 sqft o 3 bed, 2 storey semi-detached – 780 sqft o 3 bed, 2 storey detached – 799 sqft o 4 bed, 2 storey detached – 1,096 sqft

• Do not agree with the stated value areas as the identified values do not accurately reflect what is achieved in the district.

• Do not agree with 5% reduction

• Do not agree with low rates of affordable housing

Johnson Mowat • Do not agree with 5% reduction

• Suggest £16,000 per unit for abnormals

Guy Titchmarsh • Consider the value area approach to broad brush

• Lower quartile costs should not be reduced further

• Contingency should be 5%

• Argue that profit should be 20% on GDV across the board

• Abnormals should be £150k per acre minimum

DLP (OBO) Keepmoat and Onward Holdings

• National Space Standards are not being achieved within the District. The cost of delivering larger units cannot be reflected in the revenue achievable.

• Analysis of value areas should take into account fluctuations over time, with appraisals subject to sensitivity testing.

• Unclear which value area relates to where.

• Build costs should be rebased to Wakefield rather than Yorkshire and the Humber

• DLP’s assessment of education contributions within the District, where primary and secondary capacity is an issue, is at an average contribution of £3,818 per unit.

• £300,000 per hectare should be considered for abnormals

Taylor Wimpey • Taylor Wimpey do not believe it is possible to test the viability of all sites within the Local Plan at the time of a plans examination since there are too many unknown factors.

• While Taylor Wimpey welcome a range of densities and product mix within the assumptions, they would assume a greater emphasis on 4 bed houses with an average of 15,000 sq ft per net developable acre.

• Taylor Wimpey disagree with 5% reduction to BCIS data and they consider that this penalises large developers who are required to give up 1ha of their sites to SMEs.

• 5% Contingency as opposed to 3%.

• Taylor Wimpey would assume an abnormals allowance of £500,000-£600,000 per acre.

Banks Developments

• Banks notice that the value map shown at the consultation stage has 5 zones and the value areas account for 4. Banks would consider a 5th value area of £160 psf

• Banks would assume a 15% uplift on BCIS costs to allow for external works.

Harworth Estates

• Harworth Estates do not agree with the use of National Space Standards and would assume the following unit sizes:

o 2-bedroom, 2 storey - 650 sq ft o 3-bedroom, 2 storey 750-800 sq ft

• Unclear which value area relates to where on the map used in consultation

• £1,500 per unit S106 appears low

• Brownfield sites should incorporate abnormal costs of £250,000 - £300,000 per acre

• Harworth Estates suggest a minimum benchmark land value of £250,000 per acre is appropriate.


Appendix 4: Strategic Site Development Appraisal Assumptions


66

APPENDIX 4: STRATEGIC SITE DEVELOPMENT APPRAISAL ASSUMPTIONS

Site: Land at St Andrews Road, Fryston Development Appraisal Assumptions

Site Plan

Site address

Land at St Andrews Road, Fryston, Castleford

Site size

2.4 Hectares gross 1.5 Hectares Net

Greenfield or Brownfield land

Greenfield

Land ownership/tenure

The site is entirely in Taylor Wimpey’s ownership.

Site constraints

• No significant highways constraints have been identified

• There are no known ecological constraints that would preclude the development of the site. The scheme represents an opportunity to achieve gains for biodiversity through environmental and ecological enhancement.

• No significant ground condition issues have been identified which would preclude the development of the site.

• There are no issues related to flood risk or drainage which will preclude development of this site.

• No heritage issues have been identified.

Current planning status of the subject site

The site is allocated within the Site-Specific Policies Local Plan (SPA 4) and Forms part of proposed allocation LP 208.

2-bed (30%) 3-bed (50%) 4-bed (20%)

Total 18 30 12

Market 16 27 11

AH 2 3 1

Shared Ownership 1 1 1

Affordable Rented 1 2 -

Details of proposed development

The site has capacity for the development of 60 units. 10% affordable housing and the below housing mix has been assumed: The following unit sizes have been adopted:

• 70 sq m (753 sq ft) • 93 sq m (1,001 sq ft) • 115 sq m (1,238 sq ft)

Sales revenue

Sales revenue of £2,152.78 per sq m (£200 psf) have been applied based upon comparable new build developments in the area.

Please state anticipated sales rate for market units

An average sales rate of 2.5 per calendar month has been assumed. This equates to an overall sales period of 24 months.

Affordable housing revenues

10% affordable housing assumed, with 50% rented/ 50% owner occupied split. Transfer values have been assumed as follows:

• Rented 45% of OMV. - £968.75 per sq m (£90 per sq ft) • Owner occupied 65% of OMV. - £1,399.31 per sq m (£130 per sq ft)

Build costs (per sq m)

The following build costs have been adopted based on BCIS rates with adjustments made to reflect Local Plan policy. £1,066.50 per sq m/ £99 per sq ft £250 per unit allowance has been included to allow for Electrical Charging Points, in accordance with the draft Local Plan.

Details of infrastructure and abnormal costs

The following infrastructure costs have been provided by Bentley Project Management: Off-site Highways: £104,643 On-site Highways: £100,780.80 Earthworks: £112,679.40 Off-site Utilities: £10,549.20 Utility Diversions: £70,420.80 Drainage: £112,277.40 Site Development Abnormals: £59,561.40 Foundations and Retaining Walls: £269,906.40 POS: £96,212.40 Cost per Unit: £15,617.19 Commercial Cost: £0.00

Total Costs: £937,031.36

Allowance for contingencies

3% contingency has been included on housebuilder costs/ Infrastructure cost contingencies have been included in the cost estimates provided by Bentley Project Management.

Allowance for professional fees 8% contingency has been included on housebuilder costs.

Professional fees on infrastructure works have been included in the cost estimates provided by Bentley Project Management.

Target profit

A Blended profit rate based upon affordable housing contribution has been adopted.

• 10% AH – 19.3% on GDV

Anticipated / agreed planning obligations

• Section 106 of £1500 per unit payable quarterly in line with housing delivery

• CIL Value area 2 - £23.47 psm payable upon open market floorspace

Finance rate 6% debt finance

Please state allowance for sales agent, leasing agent and legal fees on sales/lettings

3% agent and marketing fee on open market units

£500 per unit legal fee on affordable and market units.

Please state allowance for marketing costs

Inclusive in above

Development programme

• Pre construction period – 6 months from Jan 2022 to include all infrastructure works.

• Housing construction period of 24 months commencing in June 2022

• Sales period of 24 months off set six months from the start of construction

Please provide any other relevant information

• Land acquisition agent fee – 1% of RLV

• Land acquisition legal fee – 0.5% of RLV

• Stamp duty – at prevailing rate

Site: Parkside Hotel, Prince of Wales Colliery, Pontefract. Development Appraisal Assumptions Development Appraisal Assumptions

Site Plan

Site address

Parkside Hotel – part of the Former Prince of Wales Colliery development scheme.

Site size

4.65 ha gross 3.75 ha net


The site comprises a combination of both greenfield and brownfield land.


All land is within the freehold ownership of the Harworth Group. Title no – WYK249267.

Site constraints

• The car park for the former hotel is still on site and it’s possible the foundations haven’t been removed either. Noise mitigation will be required from Park road west of the site, which is a main road of J32 of the M62. There is also a railway line to the north/east of the site.


The site benefits from planning permission. An outline planning application (application reference: 17/02146/OUT) with details of access was submitted in August 2017. Planning permission was granted by Wakefield Council in April 2018 for up to 17 residential units and a new three arm roundabout on Park Road to provide an access to the site.


The site has capacity for the development of 150 units. 20% affordable housing and the below housing mix has been assumed:

2-bed (30%) 3-bed (50%) 4-bed (20%)

Total 45 75 30

Market 36 60 24

AH 9 15 6


Affordable Rented 4 7 3

The following unit sizes have been adopted:

• 70 sq m (753 sq ft) • 93 sq m (1,001 sq ft) • 115 sq m (1,238 sq ft)

Sales revenue

Sales revenues of £2,421.88 per sq m (£225 psf) have been applied based upon comparable new build developments in the area.


An average sales rate of 3 per calendar month has been assumed, including affordable housing. This equates to an overall sales period of 49 months.



• Rented 45% of OMV. - £1,089.85 per sq m (£101.25 per sq ft) • Owner occupied 65% of OMV. - £1,574.22 per sq m (£146.25 per sq ft)




The following infrastructure costs have been provided by Bentley Project Management: Off-site Highways: £735,565.50 On-site Highways: £251,952 Earthworks: £281,698.50 Off-site Utilities: £26,373 Utility Diversions: £176,052 Drainage: £280,693.50 Site Development Abnormals: £586,990.50 Foundations and Retaining Walls: £674,766 POS: £240,531 Cost per Unit: £21,697.48 Commercial Cost: £0.00

Total Costs: £3,254,622


3% contingency has been included on housebuilder costs. Infrastructure cost contingencies have been included in the cost estimates provided by Bentley Project Management.



Target profit


• 20% AH – 18.6% on GDV



• CIL Value area 2 - £23.47 psm payable upon open market floorspace






Inclusive in above


• Preconstruction period – 6 months commencing in January 2021

• Housing construction period of 49 months commencing in July 2022

• Sales period of 49 months off set six months from the start of construction





Site: Common Lane, Knottingley Development Appraisal Assumptions

Site Plan

Site address

Common Lane Knottingley Wakefield West Yorkshire, WF11 8BN

Site size

12.21 Ha gross (30.17acres) 9.85 Ha net developable (24.34 acres)


Greenfield.


The freehold ownership of the site is held by St Paul’s Developments Ltd. HM Land Registry details WYK698908

Site constraints

• Generally flat site, but with existing drainage ditches requiring diversion; levels to be raised to north of site as flood avoidance measure

• Drainage pumping stations required

• Proximity to railway line requiring acoustic fencing and 10m development exclusion zone

• Proximity to former chemical works suggest potential for contamination but this site has now been remediated to a very high standard.

• Proximity of Great Crested Newt suggests potential for ecology measures to be undertaken but a detailed mitigation scheme has already been approved and implemented.


Allocated in Wakefield’s Site Specific Policies Local Plan as part of a wider SPA8 designation for a mix of uses including housing, energy center, light industry and open space.

Details of proposed


development

• 2 bed houses – 103 units @ 663 sq ft/ 61.59 sq m each • 3 bed houses – 188 units @ 783 sq ft/ 72.74 sq m each • 4 bed houses – 23 units @ 1,089 sq ft/ 101.17 sq m each

Sales revenue



An average sales rate of 3 per calendar month has been assumed. This equates to an overall sales period of 104 months.


0% affordable housing assumed




The following infrastructure costs have been provided by Bentley Project Management: Off-site Highways: £545,887.65 On-site Highways: £525,739.84 Earthworks: £587,810,87 Off-site Utilities: £55,031.66 Utility Diversions: £367,361.84 Drainage: £585,713.77 Site Development Abnormals: £310,711.97 Foundations and Retaining Walls: £1,408,011.72 POS: £501,908.02 Cost per Unit: £15,617.19 Commercial Cost: £0.00

Total Costs: £4,888,180.24





Target profit


• 0% AH – 20% on GDV



• CIL Value area 3 (low) - £0 psm






Inclusive in above


• Pre construction period – 6 months commencing in January 2021

• Construction period – 104 months commencing in July 2021, based upon an average delivery rate of 3 units per calendar month

• Sales period – 104 months commencing, offset 6 months from the start of construction.





Site: Land off Wakefield Road, Normanton Development Appraisal Assumptions

Site Plan

Site address

Land to the West of Wakefield Road, Normanton, WF6 1DU

Site size

38.5 acres (gross) 26.0 acres (net)


Greenfield


Persimmon Homes Ltd benefits from an option on the land.

Site constraints

Access

• An access appraisal has been produced by Fore Consulting that confirms the site can be accessed in two locations along Wakefield Road.

Ground

• Please see Phase 1 desktop study attached which confirms the ground conditions are unlikely to form a barrier to development. Further Phase 2 SI works will be required to determine level of past mining works if any.

Floodrisk

• Site lies entirely within FZ1. Please see EA flood map attached which confirms this.

Drainage

• Land drains exist on site and SUDS could be provided.

• Foul can connect into the system at Wakefield Road.

Ecology

• Site is predominantly arable and has limited ecological value.

Overhead Cables

• Large pylons exist site wide. These will be incorporated into the layout where they cannot be diverted. The cables have been incorporated in to the masterplan as shown attached.


• Designated Greenbelt in adopted Local Plan • Draft Housing Allocation in Emerging Local Plan (LP39)


The site has capacity for the development of 380 units. 10% affordable housing and the below housing mix has been assumed. Affordable housing units are shown in yellow.

Bed No.

Storey Height

No.of Units

Total Sq.Ft

House Type Type Sq.ft % of Housetypes

BRAMPTON SEMI/TER 2 2 664

19 12,616 5

BICKLEIGH SEMI/TER 3 2.5 911

19 17,309 5

ALNWICK SEMI/TER 2 2 638

30 19,140 8

HANBURY SEMI/TER 3 2 761

37 28,157 9.8

RUFFORD SEMI

34 29,580

SEMI 3 2 870 8.8

SOUTER SEMI/TER 3 2.5 951

22 20,922 5.8

RUFFORD DET

22 19,140

DET 3 2 870 5.8

HATFIELD DET 3 2 969

41 39,729 10.8

CLAYTON CORNER

999

14 13,986

DET 3 2 3.8

LONGTHORPE DET 4 2 1153

53 61,109 13.8

CHEDWORTH DET 4 2 1222

30 36,660 7.8

WARWICK DET 4 2 1333

37 49,321 9.8

LUMLEY DET 4 2.5 1220

22 26,840 5.8

AFFORDABLE UNITS @ 10%

380

374,509 100

Sales revenue






• Rented 45% of OMV. - £968.75 per sq m (£90 per sq ft)

• Owner occupied 65% of OMV. - £1,399.31 per sq m (£130 per sq ft)




The following infrastructure costs have been provided by Bentley Project Management: Off-site Highways: £662,739 On-site Highways: £638,278.40 Earthworks: £1,994,950.60 Off-site Utilities: £66,811.60 Utility Diversions: £445,998.40 Drainage: £711,090.20 Site Development Abnormals: £67,480.40 Foundations and Retaining Walls: £1,709,407.20 POS: £609,345.20 Cost per Unit: £18,173.96 Commercial Cost: £0.00

Total Costs: £6,906,104.32





Target profit


• 10% AH – 19.3% on GDV

Anticipated / agreed planning obligations including timing of payments


• CIL Value area 2 (medium) £23.47 per sq m






Inclusive in above


• Pre construction period – 6 months (assuming planning already in place).

• Housing construction period – 126 months (assuming 3 units per month average delivery rate)

• Sales period of 126 months offset 6 months from the start of construction

(assuming 3 units per month average sales rate).





Site: 100 Lingwell Gate Lane, Lofthouse, Wakefield, West Yorkshire WF3 3JZ Draft Allocation Site Ref: LP51

Development Appraisal Assumptions

Site Plan

Site address

Land off Lingwell Gate Lane, Lofthouse, Wakefield, West Yorkshire, WF3 3JZ

Site size

Gross 2.4 Ha (5.91 Acres) Approx Net 2 Ha (Approx 5 Acres)


The site comprises a combination of both greenfield and brownfield land. The site is a homestead/ farmhouse (previously a chicken farm) and has derelict buildings associated with its former use and is also fringe of colliery land including an historic reservoir for the same.


The site is jointly owned by five members of the same family. Title Numbers: WYK 748917 and YY 108635

Site constraints

• Back filled Colliery Reservoir and Mines and Minerals claim, both of which are surmountable. We are in negotiations with the claimant of the minorial rights.

• Existing buildings to be demolished.

• Railway line to the eastern boundary of the site, so noise mitigation may be required.


Draft Allocation, site ref- LP51



2-bed (20%) 3-bed (40%) 4-bed (40%)

Total 15 30 30

Market 10 21 21

AH 4 9 9


Affordable Rented 2 5 4 The following unit sizes have been adopted:

• 2-Bed = 70 sq m (753 sq ft) • 3-Bed = 93 sq m (1,001 sq ft) • 4-Bed = 115 sq m (1,238 sq ft)

Sales revenue

Sales revenue of £2,583 per sq m (£240 psf) have been applied based upon comparable new build developments in the area.


An average sales rate of 2.5 per calendar month has been assumed. This equates to an overall sales period of 30 months.



• Rented 45% of OMV. - £1,162.50 per sq m (£108 per sq ft) • Owner occupied 65% of OMV. - £1,679 per sq m (£156 per sq ft)


The following build costs have been adopted based on BCIS rates with adjustments made to reflect Locl Plan policy. £1,066.50 per sq m/ £99 per sq ft £250 per unit allowance has been included to allow for Electrical Charging Points, in accordance with the draft Local Plan.


The following infrastructure costs have been provided by Bentley Project Management: Off-site Highways: £362,878.98 On-site Highways: £124,296.32 Earthworks: £138,971.26 Off-site Utilities: £13,010.68 Utility Diversions: £266.40 Drainage: £138,475.46 Site Development Abnormals: £289,581.98 Foundations and Retaining Walls: £332,884.56 POS: £118,661.96 Cost per Unit: £20,527.41 Commercial Cost: £0.00

Total Costs: £1,519,027.99





Target profit


• 30% AH – 17.7% on GDV



• CIL Value area 1 (high) £64.54 psm payable upon open market floorspace






Inclusive in above



• Construction period – 30 months commencing in July 2021, based upon an average delivery rate of 2.5 units per calendar month






Site: Holme Farm, Carleton, Pontefract. Development Appraisal Assumptions.

Site Plan

Site address

Land to the West of Holme Farm Way, Carleton, Pontefract WF8 3SU.

Site size

18.5 acres/ 7.49 hectares (gross) 13.0 acres/ 5.26 hectares (net)


Greenfield


Persimmon Homes Ltd benefits from an option on the land.

Site constraints

Access

• See access appraisal produced by Fore Consulting which confirms the site can be appropriately accessed from Holme Farm Way which is under Persimmon Homes’ control without requiring a secondary access.

Ground

• Please see Phase 1 desktop study attached which confirms the ground conditions are good and are unlikely to be a barrier to development. Small amount of backfill may be present in the centre of the site

however this covers a minimal area. Floodrisk

• Site lies entirely within FZ1, see EA flood map attached. Drainage

• Land drains exist on site and SUDS could be provided we are able to connect to the attenuation associated with Holme Farm Way which is under our control.

• Foul can connect into the existing system at Holme Farm Way.

Ecology

• Site is predominantly arable farmland and the development will have limited impact on ecology.

• Overhead Cables

• No pylons exist on site.


• Safeguarded Land in adopted Local Plan. • Draft Housing Allocation in Emerging Local Plan (LP96)


The following housing mix schedule has been adopted within the appraisal:

House Type

Type

Bed

No.

Storey

Height

Sq.ft

No.of

Units

Total

Sq.Ft

BRAMPTON SEMI/TER 2 2 664 36 23904

BICKLEIGH SEMI/TER 3 2.5 911 36 32796

ALNWICK SEMI/TER 2 2 638 17 10846

HANBURY SEMI/TER 3 2 761 17 12937

RUFFORD SEMI

SEMI 3 2 870 17 14790

SOUTER SEMI/TER 3 2.5 951 9 8559

RUFFORD DET DET 3 2 870 16 13920

HATFIELD DET 3 2 969 28 27132

CLAYTON

CORNER

DET

3

2

999

6

5994

LONGTHORPE DET 4 2 1153 20 23060

CHEDWORTH DET 4 2 1222 15 18330

WARWICK DET 4 2 1333 16 21328

LUMLEY DET 4 2.5 1220 7 8540

AFFORDABLE UNITS @ 30% 240 222136 • 240 units in total • 30% Affordable Housing – units highlighted in yellow.

Sales revenue

Sales revenues of £2,476 per sq m (£230 psf) have been applied based upon comparable new build developments in the area.


An average sales rate of 3 units per calendar month has been assumed, including affordable housing. This equates to an overall sales period of 80 months.



• Rented 45% of OMV. - £1,114.06 per sq m (£103.50 per sq ft) • Owner occupied 65% of OMV. - £1,609 per sq m (£149.50 per sq ft)




The following infrastructure costs have been provided by Bentley Project Management: Off-site Highways: £89,028 On-site Highways: £403,123.20 Earthworks: £63,196.80 Off-site Utilities: £42,196.80 Utility Diversions: £864 Drainage: £241,819.20 Site Development Abnormals: £42,619.20 Foundations and Retaining Walls: £1,079,625.60 POS: £384,849.60 Cost per Unit: £9,780.52 Commercial Cost: £0.00

Total Costs: £2,347,323.93





Target profit


• 30% AH – 17.7% on GDV



• CIL Value area 1 (high) £64.54 psm payable upon open market floorspace






Inclusive in above


• Pre-construction period – 6 months to include all infrastructure works

• Housing construction period of 80 months commencing after pre construction period

• Sales period of 80 months, commencing 6 months after the start of construction.

Site: Darrington Quarry Development Appraisal Assumptions

Site Plan

Site address

Darrington Quarry, Cridling Stubbs, Knottingley, WF11 0AH

Site size

Gross Area: 38 hectares (95 acres) Net Area: 25 hectares (62 acres)


The site comprises brownfield land as it is located within an area of extensive historic mineral extraction with ongoing operations continuing within the site.


The majority of the site is owned freehold and operated by Darrington Quarries Limited who is a subsidiary of FCC. A small parcel of land within the south-eastern part of the site is leased to FCC.

Site constraints

Physical The site is located within an area of extensive historic mineral extraction and ongoing operations continuing within the site. The current quarry phasing demonstrates deliverability of the site in line with the Emerging Local Plan programme. Following mineral extraction, the site will be restored and re-engineered to provide suitable development platforms for future development. Ecology Within the Emerging Local Plan an area to the north west of the site is allocated as within a Wildlife Habitat Network. The proposed development will be designed to consider the network and not break its continuity. Flooding The site is located within Flood Zone 1 and therefore has little to no risk of flooding. Operational Considerations The current phasing programme for mineral extraction demonstrates deliverability of the site in line with the emerging Local Plan programme. The quarry phasing programme is outlined on drawing no. WR7570_01_02_R0 (Figure 2) and Section 3 of the Additional Evidence Work Report accompanying this submission.

There is a S106 Agreement in place (between Darrington Quarries and Wakefield Council) for the Darrington Quarry site. The agreement allows operations to be tailored to allow for the flexibility of incorporating the Knottingley Relief Road and a mixed-use development scheme (Planning Ref. 08/01696/FUL).


Under the adopted Local Plan, the site is allocated as within the Green Belt, Minerals Safeguarding Area and Wildlife Habitat Network. However, under the emerging Local Plan the site is allocated as within a Special Policy Area (LP775), as an urban extension to Knottingley, a Minerals Safeguarding Area and the eastern part of the site is allocated as a Wildlife Habitat Network. In addition, the Knottingley Relief Road Scheme (LP777) runs through the site. Relevant planning permissions for the site area include: 08/1696/FUL – An extension to Darrington Quarry comprising the extraction of approximately 10 million tonnes of Upper Magnesian Limestone from within an area of land approximately 45.5 hectares, north of the M62 motorway, over a period of 18 years, including restoration to low level agriculture through the limited importation of inert material and utilising quarry silts and the placement of soil resources. 13/00424/FUL – S73 Application to continue development (Quarry final restoration scheme) without compliance with conditions 3, 30 and 31 from application 07/00003/FUL.


The site has capacity for the development of 541 units. 0% affordable housing and the below housing mix has been assumed. The development will be delivered in three broad phases as below:

Phase 1

Phase 2

Phase 3

Commercial: The site will also provide circa 64,000 sq m of industrial floorspace. It is not clear how this will come forward at this stage. Based upon C&W’s market knowledge, it has been assumed that the proposed floorspace could be delivered as 4 relatively large units as follows:

• Phase 1 Industrial – 21,520 sqm (231,639 sq ft)

• Phase 2 Industrial – 11,560 sq m (124,431 sq ft)

• Phase 3a industrial – 15,780 sq m (169,854 sq ft)

• Phase 3b industrial – 15,780 sq m (169,854 sq ft) Sales revenue

Residential: Sales revenue of £2,045 per sq m (£190 psf) have been applied based upon comparable new build developments in the area. Commercial: A rental rate of £67 per sq m (£6 per sq ft) and yield of 5.5% has been assumed for the industrial units. A rent-free period of 6 months has also been applied. A land receipt of £250,000 per acre has been assumed for the local centre land on the site (5.41 acres).

Please state anticipated sales rate

An average sales rate of 4 per calendar month has been assumed, assuming that two outlets will be delivering on site at the same time.






The following infrastructure costs have been provided by Bentley Project Management: Off-site Highways: £2,652,940 On-site Highways: £2,856,350.16 Earthworks: £1,015,992.59 Off-site Utilities: £378,392 Utility Diversions: £634,960.88 Drainage: £1,012,367.89 Site Development Abnormals: £537,045.29 Foundations and Retaining Walls: £2,433,656.04 POS: £1,325,969.36 Cost per Unit: £23,748.01 Commercial Cost: £10,200,000.00

Total Costs: £23,047,675.02





Target profit


• 0% AH – 20% on GDV



• CIL Value area 3 (low) - £0 psm

• CIL has not been charged on the industrial units in line with the adopted Wakefield Charging Schedule.






Residential marketing costs inclusive in above.

£20,000 fixed marketing cost for the industrial units in each phase (£60,000 total) has been assumed.


It has been assumed that the development will be delivered in 3 broad phases as follows, with an average delivery rate of 4 units per month:

• 12-month pre construction period at start of development

• Phase 1 – overall housing construction period of 25 months, assuming an average delivery rate of 4 units per month. Sales period of 25 months offset from the start of construction.

• Phase 1 Industrial construction period of 12 months commencing immediately after pre construction period. Sale upon PC assumed.

• Phase 2 – overall housing construction period of 31 months assuming an average delivery rate of 4 units per month. Sales period of 31 months offset

from the start of construction.

• Phase 2 Industrial construction period of 12 months commencing immediately after pre construction period. Sale upon PC assumed.

• Phase 3 - overall housing construction period of 81 months assuming an average delivery rate of 4 units per month. Sales period of 81 months offset from the start of construction.

• Phase 3 Industrial construction period of 12 months commencing immediately after pre construction period. Each unit is assumed to have a 12-month construction period with construction of the second unit commencing upon sale of the first. Sale upon PC assumed.





Site: Land East of Wakefield Road, Hemsworth. Development Appraisal Assumptions

Site Plan

Site address

Land east of Wakefield Road, Hemsworth, Wakefield WF9 5SH

Site size

Red line boundary area – 11 ha (27.2 acres) Indicative net developable area – 8 ha (20.4 acres)


Greenfield


The entire site is owned by Moxon Farms under titles WYK923457 and WYK923456 (Appendix 2). The site is being promoted by Banks Group.

Site constraints

• Site designated as Wildlife Habitat Network. Proposed Masterplan includes habitat enhancement in east and north of site.

• Railway along eastern boundary. Proposed Masterplan incorporates a standoff for noise mitigation.

• One Public Right of Way and two other permissive footpaths cross the site. Masterplan retains and enhances these routes.

• One 300mm foul water pipe crosses the site in approximately a north/south direction.


The site currently designated as Green Belt and Wildlife Habitat Network.



• 2 Bed House: 15% - 33 units



• 5 Bed House: 15% - 33 units The following unit sizes have been adopted:

• 2 bed -70 sq m (753 sq ft) • 3 bed - 93 sq m (1,001 sq ft) • 4 bed - 115 sq m (1,238 sq ft) • 5 bed – 128 sq m (1,378 sq ft)

Sales revenue





0% affordable housing assumed.




The following infrastructure costs have been provided by Bentley Project Management: Off-site Highways: £383,691 On-site Highways: £396,529.60 Earthworks: £1,154,971.40 Off-site Utilities: £38,680.40 Utility Diversions: £792 Drainage: £411,683.80 Site Development Abnormals: £218,391.80 Foundations and Retaining Walls: £1,701,453.60 POS: £352,778.80 Cost per Unit: £21,054.43 Commercial Cost: £0.00

Total Costs: £4,631,975.27





Target profit


• 0% AH – 20% on GDV



• CIL Value area 3 (low) £0 psm






Inclusive in above


• Summer 2022 appraisal start date

• 6-month pre-construction/ infrastructure delivery period

• Housing construction commencing in Jan 2023 with an assumed delivery rate of 3 units per month. This equates to a construction period of 73 months, with sales offset 6 months from the start of construction.





Site: Land North of Broad Lane, South Kirkby

Draft Allocation Site Ref: LP764

Development Appraisal Assumptions

Plan illustrating site boundary

Please state site address

Land North of Broad Lane, Langthwaite, South Kirkby,

Site size

The draft Local Plan allocation document states that the gross area of allocation LP764 is 50.51 ha. As the appraisal is only focused on the residential element of this allocation, C&W have measured the residential plot only, based on the masterplan provided by the site promoter, at 7.83 hectares.

Please state if site is Greenfield or Brownfield land or a combination of both. (If brownfield, please state former land uses)

Greenfield

Land ownership/tenure (HM Land Registry title numbers & plans)

The site is held in several private freehold ownerships as below:

• GB Turnbull Ltd - YY7419, WYK624920, WYK591352

• Dendown Ltd - WYK588732, WYK143860

• Unknown Freeholder – WYK577047, WYK899996

Site constraints (Please provide details of known site constraints or anticipated site risks given previous land uses)

• Site access – existing Broad Lane is not wide enough

• Langthwaite Beck runs through the site

• Rolling site topography

Details of proposed development including building schedule: (Please state proposed development in units and floor areas GIA and NIA sq m and sq ft. For residential schemes please state mix of dwellings by house / flats and by number of beds and quantity of affordable units)

The site promoters (Production Park) have provided a site masterplan which includes a range of uses including student accommodation, educational facilities, industrial units, and hotel/retail. The site promoters have provided additional information stating that the site will only deliver 69 traditional residential units. The shadow appraisal considers this element of the scheme only.

The following unit mix has been adopted.

2-bed (20%)

3-bed (50%)

4-bed (30%)

Total 20

35

14

Market 20

35

14

The following unit sizes have been adopted: 70 sq m (753 sq ft) 93 sq m (1,001 sq ft) 115 sq m (1,238 sq ft)

Details of on and off site infrastructure requirements

It has been assumed that, due to the specialist nature of the uses proposed, Production Park will service the residential part of the site as part of wider site works.

Sales revenue

Residential – Market value of £180 psf (£1,937.50 per sq m) adopted.


A sales rate of 3 per month per outlet has been assumed. This equates to an overall sales period of 23 months.



Build costs (per sq m) (Please state the base build cost and allowance for external works)

The following build costs have been adopted based on BCIS rates with adjustments made to reflect Local Plan policy. £1,066.50 per sq m/ £99 per sq ft

£250 per unit allowance has been included to allow for Electrical Charging Points, in accordance with the draft Local Plan.


It has been assumed that, due to the specialist nature of the uses proposed, Production Park will service the residential part of the site as part of wider site works. Abnormal costs have therefore been excluded from the appraisal on this basis.


Draft allocation as a Special Policy Area. The draft allocation states that development at the site will include employment, educational commercial facilities and housing.


3% on housebuilder costs.

Allowance for professional fees

8% on housebuilder costs

Target profit

Blended profit rate based upon affordable housing contribution.

0% AH – 20% on GDV


• Section 106 of £1500 per unit

• CIL Value area 3 (low) £0 psm




£500 per unit legal fee on affordable and market units


Inclusive in above



• Construction period – 23 months commencing in July 2021, based upon an average delivery rate of 3 units per calendar month


Please provide any other relevant information (eg other costs not included above or grant funding / recoverable investment and additional revenue if applicable)





Appendix 5: Strategic Site Development Appraisals Wakefield Council Local Plan Viability Evidence Base

67

APPENDIX 5: STRATEGIC SITE DEVELOPMENT APPRAISALS

St Andrews Road Fryston Wakefield Local Plan Viability

Development Appraisal Cushman & Wakefield

02 December 2019

APPRAISAL SUMMARY CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD St Andrews Road Fryston Wakefield Local Plan Viability

Summary Appraisal for Phase 1

Currency in £

REVENUE Sales Valuation Units m² Sales Rate m² Unit Price Gross Sales

Market Housing - 2-bed 16 1,120.00 2,152.78 150,695 2,411,114 Shared Ownership - 2-bed 1 70.00 1,399.31 97,952 97,952 Social Rented - 2-bed 1 70.00 968.75 67,813 67,813 Market Housing - 3-bed 27 2,511.00 2,152.78 200,209 5,405,631 Shared Ownership - 3-bed 1 93.00 1,399.31 130,136 130,136 Social Rented - 3-bed 2 186.00 968.75 90,094 180,188 Market Housing - 4-bed 11 1,265.00 2,152.78 247,570 2,723,267 Shared Ownership - 4-bed 1 115.00 1,399.31 160,921 160,921 Totals 60 5,430.00 11,177,019

NET REALISATION 11,177,019

OUTLAY

ACQUISITION COSTS Residualised Price 792,924

792,924 Stamp Duty 27,146 Agent Fee 1.00% 7,929 Legal Fee 0.50% 3,965

39,040 CONSTRUCTION COSTS Construction m² Build Rate m² Cost

Market Housing - 2-bed 1,120.00 1,066.50 1,194,480 Shared Ownership - 2-bed 70.00 1,066.50 74,655 Social Rented - 2-bed 70.00 1,066.50 74,655 Market Housing - 3-bed 2,511.00 1,066.50 2,677,982 Shared Ownership - 3-bed 93.00 1,066.50 99,185 Social Rented - 3-bed 186.00 1,066.50 198,369 Market Housing - 4-bed 1,265.00 1,066.50 1,349,123 Shared Ownership - 4-bed 115.00 1,066.50 122,648 Totals 5,430.00 5,791,095 5,791,095

Contingency 3.00% 173,733 173,733

Other Construction Off Site Highways 104,643 On-Site Highways 100,781 Earthworks 112,679 Offsite Utilities 10,549 Utility Diversions 70,420 Drainage 112,277 Site Development Abnormals 59,561 Foundations and Retaining Walls 269,906 POS 96,212 Electrical Vehicle Charging Point 60.00 un 250.00 /un 15,000 CIL 4,896.00 m² 23.47 /m² 114,909

1,066,937 Section 106 Costs

Section 106 90,000 90,000

PROFESSIONAL FEES Professional Fees 8.00% 463,288

463,288 DISPOSAL FEES

Sales Agent and Marketing Fee 3.00% 316,200

Project: St Andrews Road Fryston ARGUS Developer Version: 8.00.000 Date: 02/12/2019

APPRAISAL SUMMARY CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD St Andrews Road Fryston Wakefield Local Plan Viability

Sales Legal Fee 60.00 un 500.00 /un 30,000 346,200

FINANCE Debit Rate 6.00%, Credit Rate 0.00% (Nominal) Land 119,390 Construction 137,047 Other 198 Total Finance Cost 256,635

TOTAL COSTS 9,019,852

PROFIT 2,157,167

Performance Measures Profit on Cost% 23.92% Profit on GDV% 19.30% Profit on NDV% 19.30%

IRR 36.24%

Profit Erosion (finance rate 6.000) 3 yrs 7 mths

Project: St Andrews Road Fryston ARGUS Developer Version: 8.00.000 Date: 02/12/2019

Parkside Hotel, Pontefract Wakefield Local Plan Viability Study


02 December 2019

APPRAISAL SUMMARY CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD Parkside Hotel, Pontefract Wakefield Local Plan Viability Study


Currency in £


2-Bed Open Market 36 2,520.00 2,421.88 169,532 6,103,138 3-Bed Open Market 60 5,580.00 2,421.88 225,235 13,514,090 4-Bed Open Market 24 2,760.00 2,421.88 278,516 6,684,389 2-Bed Shared Ownership 5 350.00 1,574.22 110,195 550,977 2-Bed Social Rented 4 280.00 1,089.85 76,290 305,158 3-Bed Shared Ownership 8 744.00 1,574.22 146,402 1,171,220 3-Bed Social Rented 7 651.00 1,089.85 101,356 709,492 4-Bed Social Rented 3 345.00 1,089.85 125,333 375,998 4-Bed Shared Ownership 3 345.00 1,574.22 181,035 543,106 Totals 150 13,575.00 29,957,568


OUTLAY

ACQUISITION COSTS Residualised Price 2,555,903

2,555,903 Stamp Duty 115,295 Agent Fee 1.00% 25,559 Legal Fee 0.50% 12,780


2-Bed Open Market 2,520.00 1,066.50 2,687,580 3-Bed Open Market 5,580.00 1,066.50 5,951,070 4-Bed Open Market 2,760.00 1,066.50 2,943,540 2-Bed Shared Ownership 350.00 1,066.50 373,275 2-Bed Social Rented 280.00 1,066.50 298,620 3-Bed Shared Ownership 744.00 1,066.50 793,476 3-Bed Social Rented 651.00 1,066.50 694,292 4-Bed Social Rented 345.00 1,066.50 367,943 4-Bed Shared Ownership 345.00 1,066.50 367,943 Totals 13,575.00 14,477,738 14,477,738

Contingency 3.00% 434,332 434,332

Other Construction CIL 10,860.00 m² 23.47 /m² 254,884 Off-site Highways 735,566 On-site Highways 251,952 Earthworks 281,699 Off-site Utilities 26,373 Utility Diversions 176,052 Drainage 280,694 Site Dev Abnormals 586,991 Foundations and Retaining Walls 674,766 POS 240,531 Electrical Charging Point 150.00 un 250.00 /un 37,500


Section 106 225,000 225,000

PROFESSIONAL FEES Professional Fees 8.00% 1,158,219

1,158,219

Project: Parkside Hotel, Pontefract ARGUS Developer Version: 8.00.000 Date: 02/12/2019

APPRAISAL SUMMARY CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD Parkside Hotel, Pontefract Wakefield Local Plan Viability Study DISPOSAL FEES

Sales Agent and Marketing Fee 3.00% 789,049 Sales Legal Fee 150.00 un 500.00 /un 75,000

864,049 FINANCE

Debit Rate 6.00%, Credit Rate 0.00% (Nominal) Land 555,606 Construction 413,973 Total Finance Cost 969,579


PROFIT 5,572,107


IRR 23.77%


Project: Parkside Hotel, Pontefract ARGUS Developer Version: 8.00.000 Date: 02/12/2019

Common Ln, Knottingley Wakefield Local Plan Viability Study


29 November 2019

APPRAISAL SUMMARY CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD Common Ln, Knottingley Wakefield Local Plan Viability Study


Currency in £


2-Bed Open Market 103 6,343.77 2,045.14 125,960 12,973,898 3-Bed Open Market 188 13,675.12 2,045.14 148,763 27,967,535 4-Bed Open Market 22 2,225.74 2,045.14 206,907 4,551,950 Totals 313 22,244.63 45,493,383


OUTLAY

ACQUISITION COSTS Residualised Price (12.21 Ha 126,616.14 pHect) 1,545,983



2-Bed Open Market 6,343.77 1,066.50 6,765,631 3-Bed Open Market 13,675.12 1,066.50 14,584,515 4-Bed Open Market 2,225.74 1,066.50 2,373,752 Totals 22,244.63 23,723,898 23,723,898

Contingency 3.00% 711,717 711,717

Other Construction Off Site Highways 545,888 On Site Highways 525,740 Earthworks 587,810 Off site Utilities 55,032 Drainage 585,714 Site Dev Abnormals 310,712 Foundations and Retaining Walls 1,408,012 POS 501,908 Electrical Charging Point 313.00 un 250.00 /un 78,250 Utility Diversion 367,362


Section 106 469,500 469,500


1,897,912 DISPOSAL FEES

Sales Agent and Marketing Fee 3.00% 1,364,801 Sales Legal Fee 313.00 un 500.00 /un 156,500

1,521,301 FINANCE

Debit Rate 6.00%, Credit Rate 0.00% (Nominal) Land 565,148 Construction 904,831 Total Finance Cost 1,469,979


PROFIT

Project: Common Ln, Knottingley ARGUS Developer Version: 8.00.000 Date: 29/11/2019

APPRAISAL SUMMARY CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD Common Ln, Knottingley Wakefield Local Plan Viability Study

9,098,676


IRR 19.36%


Project: Common Ln, Knottingley ARGUS Developer Version: 8.00.000 Date: 29/11/2019

Land West of Wakefield Road, Normanton Wakefield Local Plan Viability Study


02 December 2019

APPRAISAL SUMMARY CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD Land West of Wakefield Road, Normanton Wakefield Local Plan Viability Study


Currency in £


2-Bed Open Market 30 1,778.10 2,152.78 127,595 3,827,858 3-Bed Open Market 170 14,076.00 2,152.78 178,250 30,302,531 4-Bed Open Market 142 16,158.18 2,152.78 244,965 34,785,007 2-Bed Shared Ownership 10 616.90 1,399.31 86,323 863,234 2-Bed Social Rented 9 555.21 968.75 59,762 537,860 3-Bed Shared Ownership 9 761.67 1,399.31 118,424 1,065,812 3-Bed Social Rented 10 846.30 968.75 81,985 819,853 Totals 380 34,792.36 72,202,156


OUTLAY




2-Bed Open Market 1,778.10 1,066.50 1,896,344 3-Bed Open Market 14,076.00 1,066.50 15,012,054 4-Bed Open Market 16,158.18 1,066.50 17,232,699 2-Bed Shared Ownership 616.90 1,066.50 657,924 2-Bed Social Rented 555.21 1,066.50 592,131 3-Bed Shared Ownership 761.67 1,066.50 812,321 3-Bed Social Rented 846.30 1,066.50 902,579 Totals 34,792.36 37,106,052 37,106,052

Contingency 3.00% 1,113,182 1,113,182

Other Construction CIL 32,012.28 m² 23.47 /m² 751,328 Off-Site Highways 662,739 On-site highways 638,278 Earthworks 1,994,950 Off-site utilities 66,812 Utility Diversions 445,998 Drainage 711,090 Site Development Abnormals 67,480 Foundations and Retaining Walls 1,709,407 POS 609,345 Electrical Charging Point 380.00 un 250.00 /un 95,000


Section 106 570,000 570,000




2,257,462

Project: Land West of Wakefield Road, Normanton ARGUS Developer Version: 8.00.000 Date: 02/12/2019

APPRAISAL SUMMARY CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD Land West of Wakefield Road, Normanton Wakefield Local Plan Viability Study FINANCE

Debit Rate 6.00%, Credit Rate 0.00% (Nominal) Land 1,476,056 Construction 1,327,595 Total Finance Cost 2,803,651


PROFIT 13,935,020


IRR 16.45%


Project: Land West of Wakefield Road, Normanton ARGUS Developer Version: 8.00.000 Date: 02/12/2019

Lingwell Gate Lane, Lofthouse Wakefield Local Plan Viability Study


02 December 2019

APPRAISAL SUMMARY CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD Lingwell Gate Lane, Lofthouse Wakefield Local Plan Viability Study


Currency in £


2-Bed Open Market 10 700.00 2,583.34 180,834 1,808,338 3-Bed Open Market 21 1,953.00 2,583.36 240,252 5,045,302 4-Bed Open Market 21 2,415.00 2,583.34 297,084 6,238,766 2-Bed Shared Ownership 2 140.00 1,679.17 117,542 235,084 2-Bed Social Rented 2 140.00 1,162.50 81,375 162,750 3-Bed Shared Ownership 4 372.00 1,679.17 156,163 624,651 3-Bed Social Rented 5 465.00 1,162.50 108,113 540,563 4-Bed Shared Ownership 5 575.00 1,679.17 193,105 965,523 4-Bed Shared Ownership 4 460.00 1,162.50 133,688 534,750 Totals 74 7,220.00 16,155,726


OUTLAY




2-Bed Open Market 700.00 1,066.50 746,550 3-Bed Open Market 1,953.00 1,066.50 2,082,874 4-Bed Open Market 2,415.00 1,066.50 2,575,598 2-Bed Shared Ownership 140.00 1,066.50 149,310 2-Bed Social Rented 140.00 1,066.50 149,310 3-Bed Shared Ownership 372.00 1,066.50 396,738 3-Bed Social Rented 465.00 1,066.50 495,923 4-Bed Shared Ownership 575.00 1,066.50 613,238 4-Bed Shared Ownership 460.00 1,066.50 490,590 Totals 7,220.00 7,700,130 7,700,130

Contingency 3.00% 231,004 231,004

Other Construction Electrical Charging Point 74.00 un 250.00 /un 18,500 CIL 5,068.00 m² 64.54 /m² 327,089 Off-Site utilities 362,879 On-site utilities 124,296 Earthworks 138,971 Off-site utilities 13,011 Utility Diversions 266 Drainage 138,475 Site Dev Abnormals 289,582 Foundations and Retaining Walls 332,885 POS 118,662


Section 106 111,000 111,000


616,010

Project: Lingwell Gate Lane, Lofthouse ARGUS Developer Version: 8.00.000 Date: 02/12/2019

APPRAISAL SUMMARY CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD Lingwell Gate Lane, Lofthouse Wakefield Local Plan Viability Study DISPOSAL FEES

Sales Agent and Marketing Fee 3.00% 392,772 Sales Legal Fee 74.00 un 500.00 /un 37,000

429,772 FINANCE

Debit Rate 6.00%, Credit Rate 0.00% (Nominal) Land 292,426 Construction 186,619 Total Finance Cost 479,045


PROFIT 2,859,563


IRR 27.63%


Project: Lingwell Gate Lane, Lofthouse ARGUS Developer Version: 8.00.000 Date: 02/12/2019

Holme Farm - Carleton Wakefield Local Plan Viability Study


02 December 2019

APPRAISAL SUMMARY CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD Holme Farm - Carleton Wakefield Local Plan Viability Study


Currency in £


2-Bed Open Market 17 1,007.63 2,476.00 146,758 2,494,892 3-Bed Open Market 93 7,741.80 2,476.00 206,115 19,168,697 4-Bed Open Market 58 6,620.09 2,476.00 282,609 16,391,343 2-Bed Shared Ownership 18 1,110.38 1,609.20 99,268 1,786,823 2-Bed Social Rented 18 1,110.38 1,114.06 68,724 1,237,030 3-Bed Share Ownership 18 1,523.43 1,609.20 136,195 2,451,504 3-Bed Social Rented 18 1,523.43 1,114.06 94,288 1,697,192 Totals 240 20,637.14 45,227,481


OUTLAY




2-Bed Open Market 1,007.63 1,066.50 1,074,637 3-Bed Open Market 7,741.80 1,066.50 8,256,630 4-Bed Open Market 6,620.09 1,066.50 7,060,326 2-Bed Shared Ownership 1,110.38 1,066.50 1,184,220 2-Bed Social Rented 1,110.38 1,066.50 1,184,220 3-Bed Share Ownership 1,523.43 1,066.50 1,624,738 3-Bed Social Rented 1,523.43 1,066.50 1,624,738 Totals 20,637.14 22,009,510 22,009,510

Contingency 3.00% 660,285 660,285

Other Construction CIL 15,369.52 m² 64.54 /m² 991,949 Off-site Highways 89,028 On-site Highways 403,123 Earthworks 63,197 Off site Utilities 42,197 Utility Diversions 864 Drainage 241,818 Site Dev Abnormals 42,618 Foundations and Retaining Walls 1,079,626 POS 384,850 Electrical Charging Point 240.00 un 250.00 /un 60,000


Section 106 360,000 360,000

PROFESSIONAL FEES Professional 8.00% 1,760,761



1,261,648

Project: Holme Farm - Carleton ARGUS Developer Version: 8.00.000 Date: 02/12/2019

APPRAISAL SUMMARY CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD Holme Farm - Carleton Wakefield Local Plan Viability Study FINANCE

Debit Rate 6.00%, Credit Rate 0.00% (Nominal) Land 1,502,823 Construction 293,247 Total Finance Cost 1,796,070


PROFIT 8,005,264


IRR 18.05%


Project: Holme Farm - Carleton ARGUS Developer Version: 8.00.000 Date: 02/12/2019

Darrington Quarry- 0% Affordable Housing Wakefield Local Plan Site Specific Viability

Development Appraisal Licensed Copy

03 December 2019

APPRAISAL SUMMARY LICENSED COPY Darrington Quarry- 0% Affordable Housing Wakefield Local Plan Site Specific Viability

Summary Appraisal for Merged Phases 1 2 3 4 5 6

Currency in £


Phase 1 Market - 1 Bed Flats 30 1,499.91 2,045.14 102,251 3,067,526 Phase 1 Market - 2 Bed Flats 26 1,482.00 2,045.14 116,573 3,030,897 Phase 1 Market - 2 Bed Houses 8 520.00 2,045.14 132,934 1,063,473 Phase 1 Market - 3 Bed Houses 26 2,418.00 2,045.14 190,198 4,945,149 Phase 1 Market - 4 Bed Houses 9 999.00 2,045.14 227,011 2,043,095 Phase 2 Market - 1 Bed Flats 23 1,149.93 2,045.14 102,251 2,351,770 Phase 2 Market - 2 Bed Flats 20 1,140.00 2,045.14 116,573 2,331,460 Phase 2 Market - 2 Bed Houses 8 520.00 2,045.14 132,934 1,063,473 Phase 2 Market - 3 Bed Houses 34 3,162.00 2,045.14 190,198 6,466,733 Phase 2 Market - 4 Bed Houses 30 3,330.00 2,045.14 227,011 6,810,316 Phase 2 Market - 5 Bed Houses 6 810.00 2,045.14 276,094 1,656,563 Phase 3 Market - 1 Bed Flats 34 1,699.90 2,045.14 102,251 3,476,529 Phase 3 Market - 2 Bed Flats 42 2,394.00 2,045.14 116,573 4,896,065 Phase 3 Market - 2 Bed Houses 19 1,235.00 2,045.14 132,934 2,525,748 Phase 3 Market - 3 Bed Houses 127 11,811.00 2,045.14 190,198 24,155,149 Phase 3 Market - 4 Bed Houses 88 9,768.00 2,045.14 227,011 19,976,928 Phase 3 Market - 5 Bed Houses 11 1,485.00 2,045.14 276,094 3,037,033 Totals 541 45,423.74 92,897,906

Rental Area Summary Initial Net Rent Initial Units m² Rent Rate m² MRV/Unit at Sale MRV

Phase 1 Industrial 1 21,520.00 64.58 1,389,762 1,389,762 1,389,762 Phase 2 Industrial 1 11,560.00 64.58 746,545 746,545 746,545 Phase 3a Industrial 1 15,780.00 64.58 1,019,072 1,019,072 1,019,072 Phase 3b Industrial 1 15,780.00 64.58 1,019,072 1,019,072 1,019,072 Totals 4 64,640.00 4,174,451 4,174,451

Investment Valuation Phase 1 Industrial Market Rent 1,389,762 YP @ 5.5000% 18.1818 (6mths Rent Free) PV 6mths @ 5.5000% 0.9736 24,600,922 Phase 2 Industrial Market Rent 746,545 YP @ 5.5000% 18.1818 (6mths Rent Free) PV 6mths @ 5.5000% 0.9736 13,214,994 Phase 3a Industrial Market Rent 1,019,072 YP @ 5.5000% 18.1818 (6mths Rent Free) PV 6mths @ 5.5000% 0.9736 18,039,152 Phase 3b Industrial Market Rent 1,019,072 YP @ 5.5000% 18.1818 (6mths Rent Free) PV 6mths @ 5.5000% 0.9736 18,039,152

73,894,220

GROSS DEVELOPMENT VALUE 166,792,126

Purchaser's Costs (4,993,571) Effective Purchaser's Costs Rate 6.76% (4,993,571)

NET DEVELOPMENT VALUE 161,798,554


OUTLAY

ACQUISITION COSTS Residualised Price 14,893,649 Residualised Price (Negative land) (10,515,044)

4,378,606

Project: Darrington Quarry- 0% Affordable Housing ARGUS Developer Version: 8.00.000 Date: 03/12/2019


Stamp Duty 682,182 Agent Fee 1.00% 148,936 Legal Fee 0.50% 74,468


Phase 1 Industrial 21,520.00 528.00 11,362,560 Phase 2 Industrial 11,560.00 528.00 6,103,680 Phase 3a Industrial 15,780.00 528.00 8,331,840 Phase 3b Industrial 15,780.00 528.00 8,331,840 Phase 1 Market - 1 Bed Flats 1,764.60 1,410.51 2,488,986 Phase 1 Market - 2 Bed Flats 1,743.53 1,410.51 2,459,266 Phase 1 Market - 2 Bed Houses 520.00 1,066.50 554,580 Phase 1 Market - 3 Bed Houses 2,418.00 1,066.50 2,578,797 Phase 1 Market - 4 Bed Houses 999.00 1,066.50 1,065,433 Phase 2 Market - 1 Bed Flats 1,352.86 1,410.51 1,908,223 Phase 2 Market - 2 Bed Flats 1,341.18 1,410.51 1,891,743 Phase 2 Market - 2 Bed Houses 520.00 1,066.50 554,580 Phase 2 Market - 3 Bed Houses 3,162.00 1,066.50 3,372,273 Phase 2 Market - 4 Bed Houses 3,330.00 1,066.50 3,551,445 Phase 2 Market - 5 Bed Houses 810.00 1,066.50 863,865 Phase 3 Market - 1 Bed Flats 1,999.88 1,410.51 2,820,851 Phase 3 Market - 2 Bed Flats 2,816.47 1,410.51 3,972,660 Phase 3 Market - 2 Bed Houses 1,235.00 1,066.50 1,317,127 Phase 3 Market - 3 Bed Houses 11,811.00 1,066.50 12,596,432 Phase 3 Market - 4 Bed Houses 9,768.00 1,066.50 10,417,572 Phase 3 Market - 5 Bed Houses 1,485.00 1,066.50 1,583,753 Totals 111,716.52 88,127,505 88,127,505

Contingency 3.00% 2,643,825 2,643,825

Other Construction Electric Vehicle Charging Points 99.00 un 250.00 /un 24,750 Off-site Highways 2,652,940 On-site Highways 908,707 Earthworks 1,015,993 Off-site Utilities 378,392 Utility Diversions 634,961 Drainage 1,012,367 Site Development Abnormals 537,045 Foundations and Retaining Walls 2,433,656 Public Open Space 1,325,969 Commercial Servicing Cost 3,069,000 Electric Vehicle Charging Points 121.00 un 250.00 /un 30,250 Commercial Servicing Cost 1,674,000 Electric Vehicle Charging Points 321.00 un 250.00 /un 80,250 Commercial Servicing Cost 4,557,000


Section 106 148,500 Section 106 181,500 Section 106 481,500

811,500


7,050,200 MARKETING & LETTING

Marketing 80,000 Letting Agent Fee 10.00% 417,445 Letting Legal Fee 5.00% 208,723


Sales Agent and Marketing Fee 3.00% 2,786,937



Commercial Sales Agent Fee 1.00% 738,942 Sales Legal Fee 541.00 un 500.00 /un 270,500 Commercial Sales Legal Fee 0.50% 369,471

4,165,850 FINANCE

Debit Rate 6.00%, Credit Rate 0.00% (Nominal) Total Finance Cost 1,953,237


PROFIT 30,720,796

Performance Measures Profit on Cost% 23.44% Profit on GDV% 18.42% Profit on NDV% 18.99% Development Yield% (on Rent) 3.18% Equivalent Yield% (Nominal) 5.50% Equivalent Yield% (True) 5.69%

IRR 32.97%

Rent Cover 7 yrs 4 mths Profit Erosion (finance rate 6.000) 3 yrs 6 mths


Land East of Wakefield Road, Hemsworth Wakefield Local Plan Viability Study


29 November 2019

APPRAISAL SUMMARY CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD Land East of Wakefield Road, Hemsworth Wakefield Local Plan Viability Study


Currency in £


2-Bed Open Market 33 2,310.00 1,937.50 135,625 4,475,625 3-Bed Open Market 88 8,184.00 1,937.50 180,188 15,856,500 4-Bed Open Market 66 7,590.00 1,937.50 222,813 14,705,625 5-Bed Open Market 33 4,224.00 1,937.50 248,000 8,184,000 Totals 220 22,308.00 43,221,750


OUTLAY

ACQUISITION COSTS Residualised Price (11.00 Ha 87,746.60 pHect) 965,213

965,213 Stamp Duty 35,761 Agent Fee 1.00% 9,652 Legal Fee 0.50% 4,826


2-Bed Open Market 2,310.00 1,066.50 2,463,615 3-Bed Open Market 8,184.00 1,066.50 8,728,236 4-Bed Open Market 7,590.00 1,066.50 8,094,735 5-Bed Open Market 4,224.00 1,066.50 4,504,896 Totals 22,308.00 23,791,482 23,791,482

Contingency 3.00% 713,744 713,744

Other Construction Electrical Charging Point 220.00 un 250.00 /un 55,000 Off-site Highways 383,691 On-site Highways 369,529 Earthworks 1,154,971 Off-site Utilities 38,680 Utility Diversions 792 Site Dev Abnormals 218,392 Foundations and Retaining Walls 1,701,454 POS 352,779 Drainage 411,683

4,686,971




1,406,653 FINANCE

Debit Rate 6.00%, Credit Rate 0.00% (Nominal) Land 272,225 Construction 787,555 Total Finance Cost 1,059,780


PROFIT 8,644,350

Project: Land East of Wakefield Road, Hemsworth ARGUS Developer Version: 8.00.000 Date: 29/11/2019

APPRAISAL SUMMARY CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD Land East of Wakefield Road, Hemsworth Wakefield Local Plan Viability Study


IRR 24.87%


Project: Land East of Wakefield Road, Hemsworth ARGUS Developer Version: 8.00.000 Date: 29/11/2019

Land North of Broad Lane, South Kirkby

Development Appraisal Licensed Copy 24 March 2020

APPRAISAL SUMMARY LICENSED COPY Land North of Broad Lane, South Kirkby


Currency in £


2-Bed Open Market 20 1,400.00 1,937.50 135,625 2,712,500 3-Bed Open Market 35 3,255.00 1,937.50 180,188 6,306,563 4-Bed Open Market 14 1,610.00 1,937.50 222,813 3,119,375 Totals 69 6,265.00 12,138,438


OUTLAY




2-Bed Open Market 1,400.00 1,066.50 1,493,100 3-Bed Open Market 3,255.00 1,066.50 3,471,458 4-Bed Open Market 1,610.00 1,066.50 1,717,065 Totals 6,265.00 6,681,623 6,681,623

Contingency 3.00% 200,449 S106 69.00 un 1,500.00 /un 103,500

303,949 Other Construction

Electric Car Charging Point 69.00 un 250.00 /un 17,250 17,250



Sales Agent Fee 3.00% 364,153 Sales Legal Fee 69.00 un 500.00 /un 34,500

398,653 FINANCE

Debit Rate 6.00%, Credit Rate 0.00% (Nominal) Land 194,138 Construction 56,465 Other 516 Total Finance Cost 251,119


PROFIT 2,427,687

Performance Measures Profit on Cost% 25.00% Profit on GDV% 20.00%

IRR 39.81%

Project: Land North of Broad Lane, South Kirkby ARGUS Developer Version: 8.00.000 Date: 24/03/2020


Appendix 6: Bentley Project Management Cost Plan Wakefield Council Local Plan Viability Evidence Base

68

APPENDIX 6: BENTLEY PROJECT MANAGEMENT COST PLAN

Wakefield Local Plan Review Cost Report

Wakefield

Local Plan Review

Cost Report for

Cushman & Wakefield

25 November 2019 Bentley Project Management

5 Garden Court

Main Street

Lockington

Derby

DE74 2RH t: 0115 983 0157 w: www.bentleyprojectmanagement.co.uk


1

1 Introduction

1.1 The analysis within this report is prepared for Cushman & Wakefield and will be used to assess the sites that have been put forward as part of the Wakefield Local Plan review.

1.2 The report will cover the following:

• Objectives

• Methodology

• Review of initial information presented with each site

• Benchmark data

• Application of benchmark data and site visits

2 Objectives

2.1 The objectives of this Cost Report are:

• Provide a robust and tested assessment of the development costs associated with each development site (serviced land costs plus any abnormal costings)

• Provide the costings in such a format that they can be easily identified and inserted into the wider development appraisals (prepared by Cushman and Wakefield)

3 Methodology - Residential

3.1 The following observations were made when assessing the

1. Assess the development (serviced land costs and abnormal) costings submitted by the respective promoters for each site and summarise these costing in tabulated form (identifying cost per acre and cost per unit)

2. Utilise the cost data gathered across sites of a similar nature over the past 18 months and provide a breakdown of these costs against the following cost plan headings (identifying cost per acre and cost per unit):

a. Off-site Highways b. On-Site Highways c. Earthworks


2

d. Off-Site Utilities e. Utility Diversions f. Drainage g. Site Development Abnormals (incl. Demolition) h. Foundations and Retaining Walls (non-standard) i. Public Open Space

3. Using the above data, provide a range of costs per unit as follows: a. Low b. Average c. High

4. Undertake a visit of each of the identified sites to undertake a visual inspection of the site (subject to access and in some cases not being able to physically enter the site)

5. From the site visits, identify any issues associated within each of the above headings. Such issues might include:

a. Off-site Highways; any current highway constraints or access issues such as visibility or physical

b. On-Site Highways; any obvious ground conditions or level issues that could increase costs

c. Earthworks; any significant level differences, sloping sites, flooding etc d. Off-Site Utilities; any indication of nearby utility provision or lack of e. Utility Diversions; any existing constraints such as overhead lines f. Drainage; greenfield or brownfield provision, site levels g. Site Development Abnormals (incl. Demolition); any physical constraints, existing

buildings requiring demolition h. Foundations and Retaining Walls (non-standard); levels of site, extreme slopes may

require retaining structures i. Public Open Space; landscape mitigation based on existing site conditions

6. Upon completing the site visits and identifying any known issues using the visual inspection and any information supplied by the site promoters, each site would be scored against each of the above headings. The scoring will be as follows:

a. 1 = Low b. 2 = Average c. 3 = High

7. The above scoring system will be applied across each of the cost plan headings and a total cost per acre / unit will be determined. This will provide the output that meets both of the above objectives identified in Section 2.


3

4 Methodology - Commercial

The Commercial rate applied (£300,000 per net developable acre) is a BPM guidance figure which will allow for a serviced site for each development plot.

5 Review of Initial Information presented with each site

5.1 The following observations were made when assessing the initial information supplied:

• The information in most cases was limited, but this was expected given the stage in the development process

• There was limited information in respect of ground conditions, and it should be noted that adverse ground conditions can impact significantly on earthworks, drainage and foundations

• Whilst no information was supplied in respect of flooding, the Environment Agency flood maps were checked and only two sites were partially in Flood Zone 2 but this doesn’t prohibit development.

• There was limited breakdown of any costs submitted and therefore these costs are not comparable on an itemised basis. They can be compared to the overall cost of developing the site.


4

6 Benchmark Data - Residential

6.1 The benchmark exercise has taken 12 similar sites that have been assessed over the past 18 months. The detailed breakdown of the associated costs can be found in Appendix 1.

6.2 The benchmark data was used to establish a low, average and high cost against each of the cost plan headings. This is summarised below (figures shown are cost per plot):

1 - Low 2 - Average 3 - High

Drawing RefSite

Plot Quantity

Off-site Highways £371 £1,744 £4,904On-site Highways £250 £1,680 £5,280Earthworks £263 £1,878 £5,250Off-site Utilities £14 £176 £699Utility Diversions £4 £1,174 £3,935Drainage £1,008 £1,871 £5,832Site Development Abnormals £178 £993 £3,913Foundations and Retaining Walls £189 £4,498 £7,734POS £465 £1,604 £2,451Section 106 £189 £7,495 £11,791TOTAL ABNORMAL COST £2,930 £23,112 £51,789TOTAL ABNORMAL COSTS (EXC. S106) £2,741 £15,617 £39,998


5

7 Application of Benchmark Data and Site Visits

7.1 The residential sites were assessed by visual inspection and a score was given to each against the cost plan headings. This is summarised below and is backed up by site notes that can be provided upon request if required.

7.2 The above scores were then applied to the benchmarked costs and the results can be summarised below:

7.3 Copies of the above tables can be found in Appendix 2.

7.4 The sites Darrington Quarry and Land North of Broad Lane also include commercial use as well as residential. A cost of £300,000.00 per net acre has been allowed for servicing the commercial use on each site. The breakdown for commercial use on the sites can be found in Appendix 3.


6

8 Conclusion The benchmark data used for this assessment is based upon abnormal housebuilder claimed costs on sites that were negotiated under an option agreement. At this stage the prospective developers are yet to carry out any detailed due diligence for the sites to understand the technical constraints of the sites. More detailed due diligence should be carried out on each site which will enable the key constraints for each site to be understood in more detail and potentially refine and reduce abnormal costs. If the sites are sold on the open market rather than via an option agreement there is a potential for the claimed costs from the house builders to be lower than the benchmarked data since they will be sold in a competitive market.


Appendix 7: Bentley Project Management Strategic Site Assessments


69

APPENDIX 7: BENTLEY PROJECT MANAGEMENT STRATEGIC SITE ASSESSMENTS

Name of site: St Andrew’s Road Off-site Highways Average rating Access is off Park Dale but wasn’t clearly marked on a plan. It’s assumed the access is off a road which is currently only serving 4 houses. Further investigations into the capacity of this proposed access is required. The development will not affect the capacity of the junction between Park Dale and Fryston Road, because it will create low traffic flows meaning the junction will still be below capacity. Therefore, it’s assumed mitigation will not be required.

On-site Highways Average rating The site was uneven with small level differences, but nothing major. In the information provided, there were no ground issues and it indicated the groundwater shouldn’t be shallow. Therefore, it’s assumed the road specification will be standard.

Earthworks Average rating The site is heavily overgrown with tress and scrub. A cut and fill earthworks exercise will be required with topsoil expected across the site.

Off-site Utilities Average rating Residential surrounds the site but the point of connection and capacity is unknown. Therefore, the local utility network may require upgrading.

Utility Diversions Average rating There was an existing raised concrete manhole within the site, which could be pumped due to the noise, that may need diverting. Other unknown buried services may also be crossing the site. Drainage Average rating In the information provided, the foul water will connect to the local sewer and the surface water will discharge at greenfield run off rates via a soakaway to a watercourse (none on site) or combined sewer. The site is in flood zone 1. Site Development Abnormals Average rating Nothing seen during the visit. The information provided states, a geophysical survey followed by limited trenching may be required due to archaeological finds in the local area. However, it is unlikely the site will have any remains. Foundations and Retaining Walls Average rating In the information provided, unreinforced strip or trench fill foundations are recommended. For this site it is assumed retaining walls will not be required. Therefore, what is required is a standard.

POS Average rating There are no known ecological constraints, but a report / surveys will be required. The trees and hedges are to remain where possible or be replaced through enhancements.

Name of site: Parkside Hotel, Prince of Wales Colliery Off-site Highways High rating This site has planning permission for a 3-arm roundabout to provide / improve the existing access. A high rating was assigned because from our experience the average rating multiple by the number of dwellings would not be enough to provide a roundabout and a S278 agreement. On-site Highways Average rating Generally flat site. Ground conditions unknown but use to be a hotel. Therefore, it is assumed the specification of the road will be standard and the majority of roads will have houses fronting on both sides. Earthworks Average rating Generally flat site. Overgrown with scrub and trees and topsoil will be expected across the site. Off-site Utilities Average rating Utilities will be nearby due to the previous site use being a hotel. However, point of connection and capacity are unknown and upgrading works may be required. Utility Diversions Average rating There are 11kv overhead cables on site, which may need diverting. The overhead cables could be retained depending on the layout of the proposed development, but plans are unknown. Drainage Average rating The information provided states the foul and surface water can be drained without the use of third party land. Surface water will be attenuated on site, and a foul water drainage strategy will need to be designed. The site is in flood zone 1. Site Development Abnormals High rating The car park for the former hotel is still on site and it’s possible the foundations haven’t been removed either. Noise mitigation will be required from Park road west of the site, which is a main road of J32 of the M62. There is also a railway line to the north/east of the site. Foundations and Retaining Walls Average rating Foundations are unknown, it is assumed standard foundation types will be suitable.

POS Average rating Bat boxes are to be installed on site and trees retained where possible or enhancements offered. The trees on the western boundary have TPOs and some will have to be removed for site access, however, this has been approved by planning.

Name of site: Common Lane, Knottingley Off-site Highways Average rating The existing junction on Common Lane will need improving and an access road for the existing industrial units is also required, as well as access to the residential development. On-site Highways Average rating Generally flat site. The land adjacent was an old chemical works and has been remediated, but there still could be potential for contamination. Therefore, it’s assumed the specification for the roads will be standard and the majority of roads will have houses fronting on both sides. Earthworks Average rating Generally flat site – levels may have to be raised to the north for flood avoidance. The adjacent contaminated site has been remediated, but there still could be potential for contamination. There is also topsoil over the site. Therefore, a earthworks strategy will be required. Off-site Utilities Average rating In the report provided, there is an allowance for 3 electricity sub-stations. There are residential and commercial nearby but point of connection and capacity are unknown. Utility Diversions Average rating 11kv overhead cable on site will need diverting, and there may be some diversions on the junction improvements. Drainage Average rating Existing drainage ditches need diverting and a pumping station will be required for the site. Part of the site is in flood zone 2. Site Development Abnormals Average rating There is a railway line along the southern boundary of the site. This requires a 10m exclusion zone and noise mitigation will also be required. Foundations and Retaining Walls Average rating Foundation and retaining wall proposals unknown. Potential ground contamination but the adjacent site has been remediated. The site is generally flat with the levels to the north to be raised for flood avoidance. Therefore, it’s assumed standard foundations will be required.

POS Average rating There are Great Crested Newts in the site and surrounding areas. Mitigation for this has already begun, as can be seen from the visit. Therefore, the cost for mitigation is assumed to be separate to the development. No further information has been provided for the POS.

Name of site: West of Wakefield Road Off-site Highways Average rating There are plans for two accesses of Wakefield road. The development is unlikely to have a significant impact on traffic flows. However, the transport and access report states there is no barrier in transport / highway terms for up to 300 dwelling, but the proforma is for 380 dwellings. Therefore, further investigations will be required to confirm no improvement works for mitigation are needed.

On-site Highways Average rating The site has a shallow valley, with a watercourse at the lowest point. Therefore, the levels may change slightly, but will be included within the earthworks cost. It’s assumed the specification for the roads will be standard and the majority of roads will have houses fronting on both sides.

Earthworks High rating Shallow valley with the watercourse at the lowest point and currently farmland so topsoil is expected across the site, so a cut and fill earthworks exercise will be required. In the information provided it states opencast coal mining may have occurred on the site, so an intrusive ground investigation is recommended. There may be possible pollutants if there’s made ground, and there’s a moderate possibility of hazardous ground gases. Part of the site is, and isn’t, within radon protective measures area. Therefore, a site specific radon report is required.

Off-site Utilities Average rating There are residential buildings to the east of Wakefield Road, so it is likely there will be services in the road. However, due to the size of the proposed development there may need upgrading.

Utility Diversions Average rating There are 11kv and 33kv overhead cables on the site. In the masterplan is shows the 33kv overhead cables remaining, but the 11kv will need diverting.

Drainage Average rating There is a watercourse on site and existing land drains. SUDs can be provided, and the foul water can connect into Wakefield Road. The site is in flood zone 1.

Site Development Abnormals Low rating No other abnormals were seen on the visit or in the report. Foundations and Retaining Walls Average rating It’s assumed the foundations will be standard strip / trench fill unless further investigations suggest otherwise. Some retaining walls may be required.

POS Average rating The land is arable and currently has limited ecological value. 10% of the site is to be greenspace and PRoWs are to be retained or enhanced.

Name of site: 100 Lingwell Gate Lane Off-site Highways High rating In the information provided it states they are unaware of any off-site infrastructure. From the site visit the existing access will need improving as it is currently only wide enough for one vehicle. Also, the existing access is close to the T-junction between Lingwell Gate Lane and Kenmore Road. Therefore, improvement works may be required.

On-site Highways Average rating The site couldn’t be accessed during the visit, and little information was provided. It seemed generally flat, so it’s assumed a standard specification for the roads will be required.

Earthworks Average rating Generally flat site with vegetation / scrub and topsoil across part of the site. Old farmland with part of the site a backfilled colliery reservoir. Therefore, there is the possibility of contamination and remediation being required.

Off-site Utilities Average rating There is an existing residential estate nearby and an existing farmhouse on site, so there will be utilities nearby. However, the point of connection and capacity are unknown, and the local network may need upgrading.

Utility Diversions Low rating No visible overheads. However, the site couldn’t be accessed so diversions are unknown, but are unlikely.

Drainage Average rating No information on the existing drainage for the farmhouse. There is the potential of needing a pumping station, but this is unknown until a layout is finalised.

Site Development Abnormals High rating Existing buildings to be demolished. Railway line to the eastern boundary of the site, so noise mitigation may be required.

Foundations and Retaining Walls Average rating No information provided for the foundations, so assumed they will be standard type foundations and no retaining walls required.

POS Average rating POS has been allowed for in the information provided, but the plans are unknown.

Name of site: Holme Farm Way, Carleton, Pontefract Off-site Highways Low rating The existing access of Holme Farm Way is suitable for another 300 dwellings. Therefore, no improvement or secondary access would be required. The development shouldn’t have a high impact on the local network, so it is assumed no mitigation is necessary for the existing network.

On-site Highways Average rating Generally flat site - has a gentle slope to the south west and a slight depression which was a former pond. Ground is reported as weathered mudstone / sandstone, possible contamination in the former pond / made ground. Therefore, it’s assumed the specification for the roads will be standard and the majority of roads will have houses fronting on both sides.

Earthworks Low rating Generally flat and is currently being ploughed, so there will be topsoil over the site. Therefore, no major earthworks are envisaged.

Off-site Utilities Average rating Nearby utility provision in Persimmon development on Holme Farm Way. The capacity is unknown, and the current network could need upgrading to serve the site. Utility Diversions Low rating No overhead cables and the site is currently agricultural. It’s assumed no diversions are required and no diversions assumed for access, since it was constructed for future development. Drainage Low rating Land drains exist on site and SUDs can be provided. The site can be connected to the attenuation and foul system in Holme Farm Way. The site gently slopes to the south west away from Holme Farm Way but towards the watercourse. The site is in flood zone 1.

Site Development Abnormals Low rating No existing buildings or other abnormals seen on site or reported.

Foundations and Retaining Walls Average rating Retaining walls will not be necessary for the site. Foundations are assumed to be shallow spread or trench fill, which is the standard for residential building, further investigations are required to confirm.

POS Average rating POS area identified on the masterplan, with existing trees and planting to be retained or improved where necessary.

Name of site: Darrington Quarry Off-site Highways High rating Access to the site is unknown, as there was no masterplan included with the report. If access is from Leys Lane, then this would be remote and major improvements would be required as Leys Lane, up to the site/quarry, is a single track and looks like a private road for access to the quarry only. If access is from the town side, then the existing network through the residential area would need to be improved. This is because the housing estate roads are not suitable for industrial traffic. Therefore, this was given a high rating to allow for an access to be formed and also for improvements to be made to the local network where necessary. On-site Highways Average rating Generally flat site, apart from the area already quarried. In the report it mentions Knottingley relief road going through the site, but no allowance has been made for this. Therefore, the site has been assessed with the assumption the relief road is being funding by a third party or separately to the development. Earthworks Average rating The plans to quarry and restore the entire site by 2028 are assumed to be separate to this development. The restoration of the site is to provide suitable development platforms. Therefore, it’s assumed the ground will not require further remediation. As a result, no major earthworks should be required but an earthworks strategy will still be needed. Off-site Utilities High rating Utility provision is unknown. Due to the size of the site it is assumed there will be no capacity for the development to be connected to the nearby residential area. Therefore, it is assumed a new infrastructure will be required. Utility Diversions Average rating Overhead cables to the south boundary of the site, running parallel with the M62. These may need diverting or could be retained and included in the masterplan. Buried services may also be present across the site. Drainage Average rating No information provided for drainage proposals. The site is in flood zone 1. Site Development Abnormals Average rating The site is currently a quarry, next to the M62 and a railway line. Therefore, noise mitigation will be required.

Foundations and Retaining Walls Average rating No information provided for foundation proposals. The ground conditions and levels are also unknown. However, it is assumed no retaining walls will be required if the site is left at development platforms. POS High rating There is a Wildlife Habitat Network to the north west of the site. Development plans are not to break the continuity of the network. No further information has been provided for the POS.

Name of site: East of Wakefield Road Off-site Highways Average rating It’s assumed no improvement works will be needed, but a transport assessment will be required to confirm. Access to the site will be off Wakefield Road, however, there is a quite a difference in levels between the road and the site. Therefore, a lot of work will be required to create a level access to the site.

On-site Highways Average rating Very undulating site – it drops down at the railway end of the site and can’t be seen from the road side. However, the levels will be included in the earthworks section. Therefore, it’s assumed the specification for the roads will be standard and the majority of roads will have houses fronting on both sides.

Earthworks High rating Very undulating site – it drops down at the railway end of the site and can’t be seen from the road side. A earthworks strategy and cut and fill exercise will be required, especially to access the site, form the house plateaus and provide the required grades for the on site roads. However, there is a foul drainage pipe running north to south so levels in this area may have to remain the unless it is diverted. The railway line to the east of the site will have to be considered when working within proximity. Off-site Utilities Average rating There is a residential estate to the south of the site, but the capacity and point of connection is unknown. It’s assumed the connection will be in Wakefield Road and the local network will need upgrading.

Utility Diversions Low rating No overhead cables on site. A street light may need repositioning in the road to provide access.

Drainage Average rating SUDs will be provided for the surface water and a pumping station for the foul water.

Site Development Abnormals Average rating Railway to the east of the site requires a standoff for noise. Foundations and Retaining Walls High rating Due to the level differences on site stepped foundation and retaining walls may be required.

POS Average rating Possibly in conjunction with Hemsworth Water Park, an outdoor sport contribution to be discussed with the council. PRoW to be retained.

Name of site: Land North of Broad Lane Off-site Highways High rating Broad lane is currently not suitable to facilitate the urban extension, so the infrastructure will require upgrading. The proposed South Elmsall Link Road can provide a provision for these upgrades. There are plans to access the site from the existing industrial park, which may also require infrastructure improvement works.

On-site Highways Average rating Gently sloping site, which is currently farmed. There is no masterplan so an assumption has been made that the majority of roads will have houses fronting both sides and will be a standard specification.

Earthworks Average rating Gently sloping site, which is currently farmed so topsoil is expected. Cut and fill earthworks exercise may be required to deal with the gentle slope. No information was provided for ground conditions.

Off-site Utilities High rating No information has been provided for utility provisions. Due to the size of the development / site it’s assumed utility network for the nearby residential and industrial park will not have the capacity for the new development.

Utility Diversions Low rating No overhead cables and is currently farm fields, so it’s assumed no diversions will be required.

Drainage Average rating There is a watercourse across the site, but it is in flood zone 1. No further information has been provided, so it’s assumed surface water will be attenuated and foul connected to a local sewer and a pumping station.

Site Development Abnormals Low rating No other abnormals were seen on the visit or in the report.

Foundations and Retaining Walls Average rating No information was provided. It’s assumed the slope of the site will be covered by the earthworks and retaining walls will not be necessary. Therefore, it’s assumed strip / trench fill foundations will be suitable.

POS Average rating Three PRoWs to be retained. Ecology surveys and the value of the existing vegetation is to be carried out.


Appendix 8: Terms of Engagement Wakefield Council Local Plan Viability Evidence Base

70

APPENDIX 8: TERMS OF ENGAGEMENT

Cushman & Wakefield Terms of Business (UK)

Version 2.01 (May 2018) 1

1. Client Engagement

1.1 The Client appoints C&W to provide services on these Terms

of Business and the terms set out in the Engagement Letter.

Each Engagement Letter forms a discrete contract

incorporating the latest version of these Terms of Business

that have been provided to the Client (together an/the

"Engagement").

1.2 The entire scope of the services to be provided as part of an

Engagement ("Services") is set out in the Engagement

Letter. Nothing shall bind C&W to perform any role or function

other than as is documented in the Engagement Letter.

1.3 The Client shall provide all necessary co-operation to enable

each member of the C&W Group to discharge its obligations

in respect of all Applicable Laws, particularly those pertaining

to 'know your client', anti-money laundering and the

prevention of other financial crimes, and data protection.

Each of the Client and C&W agrees that it shall comply with

all Applicable Laws in performing its obligations in relation to

the Engagement.

1.4 C&W may sometimes require input from third parties to

perform all or part of the Services. Where C&W intends to

subcontract to a third party, C&W will seek the Client's

consent before so subcontracting. The Client consents to the

use of other members of the C&W Group and C&W Affiliates

to provide all or part of the Services, and no further

notification need be given in relation to such use. Except

where C&W contracts third parties directly (otherwise than as

the Client's agent), in which case it shall be liable in particular

for any breach of C&W's data protection obligations under

Clause 7 that is caused by an act, error or omission of its sub-

processor, C&W shall not be responsible for supervising or

monitoring the performance of third parties.

2. Definitions and Interpretation

2.1 In an Engagement the following terms shall have the

following meanings:

"Applicable Law" means all applicable laws, regulations,

regulatory requirements and codes of practice of any relevant

jurisdiction, as amended and in force from time to time;

"C&W" means the member of the C&W Group that is a party

to the Engagement Letter;

"C&W Affiliate" means a third party licenced by a member of

the C&W Group to trade using the Cushman & Wakefield

brand;

"C&W Group" means DTZ Worldwide Limited (company

number 9073572) and any of its subsidiaries (within the

meaning of section 1159 of the Companies Act 2006);

"C&W Materials" means all those materials owned by C&W

and its licensors, and all Intellectual Property Rights owned

by C&W and its licensors, whether before or after the date of

the Engagement, but excluding the Service Materials.

"Client" means the addressee(s) of the Engagement Letter

and excludes any third party who pays or may be responsible

for paying any part of the Fees;

"Client Materials" means all those materials owned by the

Client and its licensors, and all Intellectual Property Rights

owned by the Client and its licensors, but excluding the

Service Materials.

"Engagement Letter" means the letter issued by C&W to the

Client and identified as the engagement letter, which shall set

out particular Services to be provided by C&W together with

other terms and conditions that shall form part of the

Engagement. Where the context permits, documents cross

referenced and/or attached to the Engagement Letter shall

form part of it;

"Fees" means the amounts specified as payable in the

Engagement Letter, or otherwise calculated in accordance

with the Engagement Letter;

"Intellectual Property Rights" means patents, trade marks,

design rights, applications for any of the foregoing, copyright,

database rights, trade or business names, domain names,

website addresses, whether registrable or otherwise,

(including applications for and the right to apply for

registration of any such rights), know how, methodologies,

and any similar rights in any country whether currently

existing or created in the future, in each case for their full

term, together with any renewals or extensions;

"Relief Event" means: (i) any delay or failure by the Client or

a person acting on its behalf to perform any obligation of the

Client under an Engagement; (ii) the failure of any

assumption set out in the Engagement Letter; and (iii) any

other event specified in the Engagement Letter;

"RICS" means the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors;

"Services" means the services to be provided to the Client

by C&W as part of the Engagement, as specified in the

Engagement Letter;

"Service Materials" means all those works, and all

Intellectual Property Rights in works, that are created,

provided, or which arise exclusively in the course of the

provision of the Services to the Client;

"Terms of Business" means the terms set out in this

document; and

"Value Added Tax" means value added tax as provided for

in the Value Added Taxes Act 1994 and subordinated

legislation made under it, or any similar sales or turnover tax

in any jurisdiction.

2.2 Unless the context otherwise requires or the contrary

intention appears, any reference to an enactment includes

that enactment as amended or replaced, together with any

subordinate legislation made under that or any other

applicable enactment; and any reference to an English legal

term includes, in respect of any jurisdiction other than

England, a reference to what most nearly approximates in

that jurisdiction to the English legal term.

2.3 Other than for notices to be given, references to "written" or

"in writing" include e-mail. The words "including" and "in

particular" and any similar words or expressions are by way

of illustration and emphasis only and do not operate to limit

the generality or extent of any other words or expressions.

The words "subsidiary" and "holding company" have the

meanings given in Section 1159 of the Companies Act 2006

(and Clause 2.2 shall not apply in relation to this sentence).

The headings in these Terms of Business are for

convenience only and do not affect their interpretation.

3. Fees, Expenses, and Payments

Fees

3.1 In consideration of the provision of the Services, the Client

shall pay the Fees. The Fees, or the method of calculating

them, shall be as set out in the Engagement Letter.

3.2 Fees stated shall be exclusive of Value Added Tax which,

where applicable, shall be charged to the Client at the

prevailing rate. The Client agrees to pay to C&W any Value

Added Tax in relation to the provision of the Services

provided that C&W has supplied a valid tax invoice as

required by Applicable Law.

http://www.cushmanwakefield.com/



Expenses

3.3 The Client shall reimburse all out of pocket expenses and

disbursements properly incurred by or on behalf of C&W in

the performance of the Services ("Expenses") up to five

hundred pounds (£500) per quarter. Before incurring any

Expenses that would result in that limit being exceeded, C&W

shall seek the Client's consent, in which case those further

Expenses shall also be payable. Expenses may be invoiced

at the same time as the Fees, or quarterly in arrears, at

C&W's discretion.

3.4 The Client shall reimburse all marketing costs which shall,

where relevant, be handled as follows:

(a) C&W will inform the Client of any marketing costs

proposed to be incurred on its behalf. C&W will

provide cost estimates for any initial marketing

campaign in the Engagement Letter, and further

proposals if additional marketing is required.

(b) Cost estimates will be best estimates or based on

actual quotations from suppliers. Final costs may

differ from estimates provided. Advertising and

printing rates provided will be from the publishers' rate

cards current at the date of the marketing proposals.

The Client shall pay any additional sum charged by

the suppliers for the correction of mistakes in artwork

or other advertising material not caused by the

suppliers. The individual printer or supplier's terms will

apply to all Client work placed with it. All costs are

gross and C&W will retain the usual trade discounts

offered by newspapers, periodicals or other media

suppliers.

(c) The Client shall instruct all suppliers directly. In the

event that C&W agrees to instruct any such supplier,

C&W may require advance payment of anticipated

costs to be incurred on the Client's behalf. Where the

sum paid on account exceeds the actual costs

incurred, such excess shall be repaid to the Client

without interest once all invoices and accounts have

been finalised and settled. Where the marketing costs

exceed the sum paid, the Client shall pay the amount

of any difference to C&W immediately on request.

(d) The Client shall reimburse all marketing costs incurred

on its behalf as and when the costs are incurred,

irrespective of completion of the transaction to which

the Services relate.

Payment

3.5 C&W's invoices are payable from the date of each invoice,

and are due for payment within fourteen (14) days. C&W may

charge the Client interest on any amounts due but which have

not been paid within this period (whether before or after

judgment) at three percent (3%) per annum above the Bank

of England base rate from time to time. Interest shall run from

the date of the invoice until all outstanding sums have been

paid in full in cleared funds.

3.6 The Client shall pay all sums by electronic bank transfer to

the C&W bank account detailed in an invoice. C&W is unable

to accept payment by cash or cheque.

3.7 The Client shall pay all sums payable to C&W in relation to

the Engagement without set-off and free of any deduction.

3.8 If the Client is required by Applicable Law to make any

deduction from any payment then it shall increase such

payment to ensure that C&W receives the same amount as it

would have received if no deduction were required.

3.9 C&W may require payments to be made on account before

commencing or completing all or part of the Services. In

specifying on-account payments C&W may have regard to

the nature and context of Services to be performed, and the

likely timing and amounts of Expenses to be incurred.

3.10 C&W may, by giving written notice to the Client, suspend

Service provision if any sum is not paid to C&W within the

period specified at Clause 3.5, until all outstanding sums

have been paid in full in cleared funds.

3.11 After completing an Engagement, C&W shall be entitled to

keep any Client materials held by it while sums payable to it

by the Client remain outstanding.

3.12 C&W may search the Client's record at credit reference

agencies for the purposes of verifying the Client's identity and

to assess whether the Client is able to fulfil its payment

obligations in relation to the Engagement.

Client Monies

3.13 C&W handles client monies in accordance with RICS rules

and regulations.

4. Client Obligations

4.1 The Client shall, as soon as reasonably practicable following

a request, provide all information, assistance, approvals, and

consents reasonably requested by C&W in relation to the

performance of C&W's obligations in connection with the

Engagement. The Client shall ensure that all information

provided by or on behalf of the Client shall be complete and

accurate in all material respects, and notify C&W as soon as

reasonably possible on becoming aware that any information

is incomplete, inaccurate or misleading.

4.2 The Client acknowledges that C&W: (i) is entitled to rely upon

the completeness, accuracy, sufficiency and consistency of

any information supplied to it by or on behalf of the Client;

and (ii) shall have no liability for any inaccuracies contained

in any information provided by or on behalf of the Client

unless otherwise stated.

4.3 All estimations made by C&W are based on depth and quality

of information provided by the Client and the Client shall not

be entitled to assume that C&W has performed an inspection.

The Client must take this into account in relation to all figures,

calculations, and advice.

4.4 The Client shall check and confirm the accuracy and

completeness of any property particulars prepared by C&W,

and shall confirm that they are not misleading. The Client

undertakes to notify C&W immediately if any particulars are

or become inaccurate or incomplete.

5. Measurements

5.1 Where C&W is required to measure a property, it will do so in

accordance with applicable measuring practices relevant to

the property. If the Client requires C&W to adopt a particular

measuring practice, it shall specify the same in writing before

work starts. The Client acknowledges that the floor areas

contained in any report are approximate and if measured by

C&W will be within a two percent (2%) tolerance either way.

In cases where the configuration of the floor plate is unusually

irregular or obstructed, this tolerance may be exceeded.

5.2 C&W is unable to measure areas to which it does not have

access, in which cases floor area may be estimated from

plans or by extrapolation. Where land or site areas are

measured, all areas will be approximate and will be measured

from plans supplied or Ordnance Survey plans, rather than

being checked on site.




6. Confidentiality

6.1 The Client consents to C&W announcing that it is providing

or has provided the Services to the Client and using the

Client's name in publicity. However, C&W shall not publish

any details of any proposed or actual transaction (other than

those which are publicly available) without prior consent,

such consent not to be unreasonably withheld or delayed.

6.2 The Client shall keep confidential and not disclose to any

other person (whether before or after termination or expiry of

the Engagement): (i) any information received by it in respect

of the methodologies and/or technologies used by C&W in

providing the Services; (ii) the details of the terms on which

C&W provides the Services; and (iii) any other information in

respect of C&W's business activities which is not publicly

available.

6.3 C&W shall, during the period commencing on the date of the

Engagement and ending two (2) years following the earlier of

the termination or completion of the Services, keep

confidential and not disclose to any other person (whether

before or after termination or expiry of the Engagement) any

information in respect of the Client's business activities which

comes into its possession as a consequence of C&W

providing the Services and which is not publicly available.

6.4 A party shall not breach this Clause 6 by disclosing

information, to the extent reasonably necessary:

(a) where required to do so by Applicable Law or order of

the courts, or by any securities exchange or regulatory

or governmental body to which such party is subject

or submits, wherever situated (whether or not the

requirement for information has the force of Applicable

Law); or

(b) to the professional advisers, insurers, auditors and

bankers of such party.

6.5 C&W shall not breach this Clause 6 by disclosing information

to members of the C&W Group or C&W Affiliates in

connection with the Engagement.

7. Data Protection & Data Handling

Data Protection

7.1 The Client appoints C&W as a data processor in relation to

personal data which is the subject of each Engagement and

in respect of which the Client is a data controller (the "Data").

7.2 In processing Data pursuant to an Engagement, C&W shall:

(a) unless otherwise requested by the Client in writing,

process the Data only to the extent, and in such

manner, as is necessary for the provision of the

Services, except where otherwise required by any EU

(or any EU Member State) law;

(b) ensure that appropriate technical and organisational

measures shall be taken to protect the Data from (i)

accidental or unlawful destruction, and (ii) loss,

alteration, unauthorised disclosure of, or access to,

Data;

(c) ensure that any person whom it authorises to process

the Data shall be subject to an actionable duty of

confidence;

(d) only cause or permit Data processing to be sub-

contracted to:

(i) sub-contractors in accordance with Clause 1.4;

(ii) members of the C&W Group and C&W Affiliates

and each of their professional advisers, insurers,

auditors and bankers; and/or

(iii) service providers appointed by a

member of the C&W Group to support

C&W's business administration and

infrastructure (as identified here and

updated from time to time)

who are committed, by means of a written contract

with C&W, to protect the Data to the standard required

by this Clause 7.

If the Client objects to any sub-processor under

Clause 7.2(d) on reasonable grounds relating to the

protection of personal data, then either C&W will not

appoint the sub-processor or the Client may elect to

suspend or terminate the Engagement upon written

notice to be given not later than thirty (30) days after

such objection has been notified to C&W in writing;

(e) only cause or permit Data to be transferred outside the

European Economic Area:

(i) to those persons identified under Clause 7.2(d)

or otherwise with the Client's prior consent (not

to be unreasonably withheld or delayed); and

(ii) taking such measures as are necessary to

ensure the transfer is in compliance with

applicable data protection law (such as

ascertaining that the recipient benefits from an

EU Commission finding of adequacy of

protection for personal data transferred from the

European Union or has otherwise agreed

European Union standard contractual clauses

on data processing in countries outside the

European Economic Area);

(f) notify the Client without undue delay and provide

reasonable information and cooperation on becoming

aware of a breach of data security which would be

notifiable under applicable data protection law;

(g) notify the Client without undue delay (and in any event

provide reasonable and timely assistance to the Client

(at the Client's expense)) to enable the Client to

respond to: (i) any request from a data subject to

exercise any of its rights under applicable data

protection law; and (ii) any other correspondence,

enquiry or complaint received from a data subject,

regulator, or other third party in connection with the

processing of the Data.

(h) C&W shall make available to the Client such

information as is necessary to demonstrate its

compliance with this Clause 7 and, if required, shall

permit the Client (or its appointed third party auditors

who are subject to strict obligations of confidentiality

and whose identity has been agreed with C&W) to

conduct an audit to confirm its compliance, provided

that the Client gives reasonable notice of its intention

to audit, conducts its audit during normal business

hours, and takes all reasonable measures to prevent

unnecessary disruption to C&W's operations. The

Client may not exercise this right more than once in

any twelve (12) month period except as required by

instruction of a competent data protection authority.

7.3 Where the Client is a public authority for the purposes of the

Freedom of Information Act 2000 ("FOIA") as amended from

time to time, the Client shall notify C&W of that fact at the start


http://www.cushmanwakefield.co.uk/en-gb/cushman-wakefield-suppliers



of the Engagement. The Client shall notify C&W within five

(5) business days of receiving a request pursuant to the FOIA

requesting information which relates to the business

arrangements between C&W and the Client and/or any

information C&W has provided to the Client at any time

(whether or not in connection with the Engagement). In

recognition of the fact that C&W may be providing the Client

with confidential or commercially sensitive information, the

Client agrees to consult with C&W and take into account

C&W's views on all such requests, giving C&W reasonable

notice to respond, before making any decision on whether

any particular information should be disclosed.

7.4 The Client shall be responsible for C&W's reasonable and

properly incurred charges in producing any documentation

which the Client requires in order to comply with a request for

disclosure under the FOIA. For the avoidance of doubt, the

Client, not C&W, shall liaise with such third party.

Data Handling

7.5 The Client shall use all reasonable procedures to seek to

ensure that any materials provided to C&W in any electronic

format are virus free, and shall be responsible for using

appropriate firewalls and anti-virus software. The Client shall

not disclose any special categories of data to C&W except by

express written agreement.

7.6 Subject to the remainder of this Clause 7, the Client

authorises C&W to communicate with any person C&W

reasonably requires in providing the Services. C&W may

release to such person any information reasonably necessary

to perform the Services and which it has obtained during the

Engagement. C&W shall not be liable for any use made of

that information.

7.7 Unless otherwise instructed in writing by the Client to destroy

or return the Data (or any copies thereof) on termination of

the Engagement, C&W keeps its Engagement files, including

the Data, for six (6) years after issue of C&W's final invoice.

The Client consents to the deletion and destruction of all

Engagement files upon the expiry of that period unless the

Client has requested in writing the return of Client papers or

documents during that period. C&W shall not be liable for any

loss arising out of the destruction of documents occurring

more than six (6) years after the date of final invoice. C&W

shall be entitled to retain Data to the extent required by any

EU (or any EU Member State) law.

7.8 If requested by Client, C&W shall provide reasonable

cooperation to the Client (at Client's expense) in connection

with any data protection impact assessment and any

consultation with the Client's data protection authority that

may be required under applicable data protection law.

In this Clause 7, “EU Member State” shall be deemed to

include the United Kingdom.

7.9 A copy of C&W’s Privacy Notice can be found here.

8. Documents and Reliance

8.1 C&W will take reasonable care in the preparation of any

research, data, report or advice ("Documents") provided as

part of the Services. Any opinions expressed in them

constitute C&W's judgement, and data upon which this

judgement is based are believed to be correct as at the date

of the Documents (but may be subject to change during the

life of the project and beyond and as new information

becomes available). C&W reserves the right to change the

underlying data, and its opinions, without prior notice in the

light of revised market opinion and evidence, but shall not be

required to update any Document already provided.

8.2 Subject to Clause 8.3, the provision of the Services is for the

Client's benefit only and no part of any Document produced

by C&W for the Client shall be reproduced, transmitted,

copied or disclosed to any third party without the prior written

consent of C&W. C&W shall not be liable to any third party

placing reliance upon any such Document.

8.3 The Client may permit other persons to use C&W's

Documents only with C&W's written consent and where such

other persons have entered into a written agreement with

C&W in relation to such use ("Reliance Letter"). C&W

expressly disclaims any tortious duty of care (e.g., in

negligence) to any third party in relation to any Document

provided in connection with an Engagement, and the Client

shall not permit any person to rely upon such Document

unless that person has first entered into a Reliance Letter.

Any limitation on C&W's liability set out in the Engagement

shall apply in aggregate to the Client and any party entering

into a Reliance Letter.

8.4 Where the Client provides a copy of a Document to another

person, or permits a person to rely upon a Document, the

Client indemnifies and holds harmless C&W from and against

any liability arising out of that person's use or reliance on that

Document except where a Reliance Letter has been entered

into by such person.

8.5 Where the Client acts on behalf of a syndicate or in relation

to a securitisation, the Client agrees that it is not entitled to

pursue any greater claim on behalf of any other person than

it would have been entitled to pursue on its own behalf had

there been no syndication or securitisation.

9. Service Quality

9.1 In carrying out the Services, C&W shall exercise the

reasonable care and skill to be generally expected of a

competent provider of services similar in scope, nature and

complexity to the Services.

9.2 In the event that the Client is dissatisfied with the provision of

the Services by C&W it must refer such complaint in the first

instance to the C&W representative named in the

Engagement Letter in accordance with the provisions of

C&W's complaints procedure current at the time of the

complaint. C&W shall supply to the Client a copy of the

complaints procedure upon the request of the Client.

9.3 No implied terms shall apply under and/or in connection with

the Engagement, and no other express warranties are given

- all such terms are expressly excluded to the extent

permitted by Applicable Law.

9.4 C&W is certified as ISO9001:2008, ISO14001, and

OHSAS18001 compliant.

10. Conflicts of Interest and Anti-Corruption

10.1 C&W maintains conflict management procedures designed to

govern actual or potential conflicts of interest. If the Client

becomes aware of a possible conflict, it shall inform C&W

immediately. If a conflict arises, then C&W will decide, taking

account of legal constraints, relevant regulatory rules and the

clients' interests and wishes, whether it can continue to act

for both parties (e.g., through the use of ethical walls), for one

only, or for neither. Where C&W does not believe that any

potential or actual conflict can be managed appropriately and

in accordance with C&W policy (available upon request), it

will inform all clients affected and consult with them as soon

as reasonably practicable as to the steps to take.

10.2 The Client acknowledges that C&W may earn commissions

and referral fees, and may charge handling fees connected

to the services that it performs, and agrees that C&W shall be


http://www.cushmanwakefield.co.uk/en-gb/privacy-notice



entitled to retain them without specific disclosure. C&W will

not accept any commissions or referral fees in circumstances

where it is of the reasonable belief that they would

compromise the independence of any advice that it provides.

10.3 It is not C&W policy to provide any services for financial gain

either directly or through connected persons, to a prospective

purchaser or tenant in respect of a property for which C&W is

instructed as agents by the seller/owner, until unconditional

contracts have been exchanged. C&W will notify the Client if

it is instructed by a prospective purchaser or tenant to provide

such services where the Client is the seller/owner.

10.4 C&W and the Client each confirms that it will not, and will

procure that its employees will not, knowingly engage in any

activity which would constitute a breach of applicable Anti-

Bribery & Corruption Laws. C&W confirms that it has in place

a compliance and training programme designed to ensure

compliance with the terms of applicable Anti-Bribery &

Corruption Laws.

10.5 For the purposes of this Clause 10, "Anti-Bribery &

Corruption Laws" means the Bribery Act 2010, the US

Foreign Corrupt Practices Act 1977 and any other applicable

legislation prohibiting bribery and corruption involving public

or private persons.

11. Liability and Insurance

11.1 Notwithstanding any contrary provision, neither party limits or

excludes its liability in respect of:

(a) any death or personal injury caused by its negligence;

(b) any fraud or fraudulent misrepresentation; or

(c) any statutory or other liability which cannot be limited

or excluded under Applicable Law.

11.2 C&W shall not be liable for any:

(a) indirect or consequential loss (even where the parties

are aware of the possibility of any such loss at the date

of the Engagement);

(b) loss of profits or revenue of the Client generally;

(c) loss of goodwill, reputation or opportunity;

(d) loss of or corruption of data, or loss resulting from the

Client's receipt of information, data, or

communications supplied or sent by C&W

electronically;

(e) pure economic loss suffered by the Client or persons

other than the Client arising out of a tortious duty of

care, whether in negligence or otherwise;

(f) acts or omissions of third parties (other than where

contracted directly by C&W otherwise than as the

Client's agent); or

(g) delay caused by its duty to comply with legal and

regulatory requirements (such as anti-money

laundering checks),

in each case arising out of or in connection with an

Engagement or any breach or non-performance of it no

matter how fundamental (including by reason of negligence

or breach of statutory duty). The parties agree that each of

sub-clauses (a) to (g) (inclusive) above are separate terms

and are intended to be severable.

11.3 C&W's total aggregate liability arising under or in connection

with an Engagement or any breach or non-performance no

matter how fundamental (including by reason of negligence

or breach of statutory duty) in contract, tort or otherwise shall

be limited in all circumstances to an amount equal to the

lesser of:

(a) five (5) times the Fees paid or payable by or on behalf

of the Client to C&W in relation to the Engagement; or

(b) two million pounds sterling (£2,000,000).

11.4 Subject always to Clauses 11.2 and 11.3, where an

Engagement involves C&W being appointed as part of a

project team, liability for loss and/or damage arising under or

in connection with the Engagement shall be limited to that

proportion of the Client's loss and/or damage which it would

be just and equitable to require C&W to pay having regard to

the extent of C&W's responsibility for the same and on the

basis that:

(a) all other Client consultants and contractors shall be

deemed to have provided contractual undertakings,

on terms no less onerous than those set out in the

Engagement, to the Client in respect of the

performance of their services in connection with the

project;

(b) there are no exclusions of or limitation of liability nor

joint insurance or co-insurance provisions between

the Client and any other party referred to above; and

(c) they shall be deemed to have paid to the Client such

proportion which would be just and equitable for them

to pay having regard to the extent of their

responsibility.

11.5 No actions or proceedings arising under or in respect of the

Engagement or documents signed in connection with it shall

be commenced against C&W after six (6) years after the date

of the final invoice in relation to the Engagement.

11.6 C&W shall effect and maintain, during the Engagement and

for a period of six (6) years after issue of C&W's final invoice,

professional indemnity insurance with a limit of indemnity of

£10 million provided always that such insurance remains

available at commercially reasonable rates, together with

such other insurance as is required to be maintained in

accordance with Applicable Law.

11.7 Further to Clause 1.2, nothing appoints or obliges C&W to act

as an External Valuer as defined under the Alternative

Investment Fund Managers Directive ("AIFMD") legislation,

or its equivalent under local law. C&W expressly disclaims

any responsibility or obligations under AIFMD and/or its

equivalent unless expressly agreed in writing by C&W. Where

C&W provides valuation advice to an entity that falls within

the scope of AIFMD ("Fund"), its role will be limited solely to

providing valuations of property assets held by the Fund.

Responsibility for the valuation function for the Fund and the

setting of the net asset value of the Fund will remain with

others. C&W's Document will be addressed to the Fund for

internal purposes and third parties may not rely on it. C&W's

aggregate liability howsoever arising out of such instruction is

limited in accordance with these Terms of Business.

11.8 C&W shall not be responsible for the management of any

property the subject of an Engagement, and shall have no

other responsibility (such as for maintenance or repair) in

relation to nor shall C&W be liable for any damage occurring

to any such property.




12. Termination

12.1 Either party may terminate the Engagement upon not less

than thirty (30) days written notice, for convenience without

cause

12.2 Either party may terminate the Engagement at any time on

written notice, either immediately or following such notice

period as it shall see fit if the other party:

(a) is in material breach of the Engagement, and such

breach is irremediable;

(b) commits any remediable material breach of the

Engagement and fails to remedy such breach within a

period of thirty (30) days from the service on it of a

notice specifying the material breach and requiring it

to be remedied (or, having so remedied, subsequently

commits a similar breach within the next thirty (30)

days); or

(c) ceases or threatens to cease to carry on business, is

found unable to pay its debts within the meaning of the

Insolvency Act 1986 section 123, has an

administrator, receiver, administrative receiver or

manager appointed over the whole or any part of its

assets, enters any composition with creditors

generally, or has an order made or resolution passed

for it to be wound up (otherwise than in furtherance of

any scheme for solvent amalgamation or solvent

reconstruction) or undergoes any similar or equivalent

process in any jurisdiction.

12.3 C&W may terminate the Engagement immediately upon

written notice if the Client has failed to pay an invoice within

thirty (30) days of the date of such invoice.

12.4 On termination of the Engagement, the Client shall pay to

C&W:

(a) Fees for the Services it has performed (on a pro rata

basis having regard to the Fees payable for the

completion of the Engagement, the expected duration

of the entire Engagement and the Services performed

prior to termination, unless otherwise specified);

(b) any Expenses properly incurred in accordance with

Clause 3.3, and marketing costs incurred in

accordance with Clause 3.4, on or before the effective

date of the termination; and

(c) where the right is exercised by the Client, any

additional sums set out in the Engagement Letter as

being payable upon termination.

12.5 If a party, acting in good faith, exercises a right of termination,

its subsequent failure or refusal to perform all or any of its

current or future obligations in connection with an

Engagement shall not be a breach of an Engagement

(whether repudiatory or otherwise).

13. Intellectual Property

13.1 All Service Materials shall vest in the Client on creation. C&W

hereby assigns the Service Materials to the Client together

with the right to sue for and recover damages or other relief

in respect of the infringement of any Service Materials by a

third party. In relation to future copyright, this shall take effect

as a present assignment of future rights.

13.2 The Client grants to C&W a worldwide, fully paid-up, non-

exclusive, transferable (to a member of the C&W Group)

licence to use, copy and modify the Client Materials and

Service Materials to the extent necessary and for the purpose

of providing the Services to the Client and performing its other

obligations in relation to an Engagement.

13.3 C&W and its licensors shall retain all right, title and interest in

and to the C&W Materials. The Client and its licensors shall

retain all right, title and interest in and to the Client Materials.

14. Non-Solicitation

14.1 Neither party shall (except with the other party's prior written

consent) directly or indirectly solicit or entice away (or attempt

to solicit or entice away) from the employment of the other,

any employee or contractor working on an Engagement, and

shall not offer employment to any employee working on an

Engagement, for a period of six (6) months following the end

of any involvement by that person with an Engagement. This

shall not prohibit a party from offering employment to an

employee or contractor of the other who has responded to an

advertising campaign open to all comers and not specifically

targeted at any of its employees or contractors.

14.2 In the event that a party breaches Clause 14.1, the other party

shall be entitled to be paid compensation of six (6) months'

salary or fees of the employee or contractor concerned. The

parties agree that this is a genuine pre-estimate of loss taking

into account the cost of recruitment and training of staff, and

is agreed on a commercial basis between the parties.

15. Notices

15.1 Any notice or other information to be given by either party to

the other under the terms of an Engagement shall be given

by:

(a) delivering it by hand; or

(b) sending it by pre-paid registered post,

to the other party at the address given in Clause 15.3.

15.2 Any notice or information sent by post in the manner provided

by Clause 15.1(b) which is not returned to the sender as

undelivered shall be deemed to have been given on the

second day after it was so posted; and proof that the notice

or information was properly addressed, pre-paid, registered

and posted, and that it has not been returned to the sender,

shall be sufficient evidence that the notice or information has

been duly given.

15.3 The address of either party for service for the purposes of this

Clause 15 (but excluding legal proceedings) shall be that of

its registered or principal office, or such other address as it

may last have notified to the other party in writing from time

to time. Notices to C&W must be addressed to EMEA General

Counsel to be valid.

16. No Waiver, Partnership or Joint Venture

16.1 No waiver of any right in connection with an Engagement

(including rights to sue for breach) shall operate or be

construed as a waiver of any other or further right whether of

a like or different character, or be effective unless in writing

duly executed by an authorised representative of the affected

party. The failure to insist upon the performance of the terms,

conditions and provisions of the Engagement, or time or other

indulgence granted by one party to another, shall not act as

a waiver of any breach, as acceptance of any variation, or as

the relinquishment of any right in connection with the

Engagement, which shall remain in full force and effect.

16.2 Each right or remedy of a party to an Engagement is without

prejudice to any other right or remedy of that party.

16.3 The Engagement shall not be interpreted or construed to

create an association, joint venture or partnership between




the parties, or to impose any partnership obligation or liability

upon either party.

17. Force Majeure and Relief

17.1 If either party is prevented or hindered from performing any

of its obligations in connection with an Engagement by

reason of circumstances outside its reasonable control, that

party ("Claiming Party") shall as soon as reasonably

possible serve notice in writing on the other party specifying

the nature and extent of the circumstances preventing or

hindering it from performing its obligations.

17.2 Subject to the Claiming Party serving notice in accordance

with Clause 17.1, the Claiming Party shall have no liability in

respect of any delay in performance or any non-performance

of any such obligation (save for any payment obligation which

shall continue in full force and effect), and the time for

performance shall be extended accordingly to the extent that

the delay or non-performance is due to such circumstances.

17.3 The Client agrees that C&W shall be excused from its failure

to perform or delay in performing any affected obligation in

connection with the Engagement to the extent that such

failure results from a Relief Event. C&W shall be entitled to a

reasonable extension of time in relation to any affected

obligation, and to recover reasonable additional costs

incurred by it, as a result of a Relief Event.

18. Illegality/Severance

If any provision is declared by any competent court or body

to be illegal, invalid or unenforceable under the law of any

jurisdiction, or if any enactment is passed that renders any

provision illegal, invalid or unenforceable under the law of any

jurisdiction, this shall not affect or impair the legality, validity

or enforceability of the remaining provisions relating to an

Engagement, nor the legality, validity or enforceability of such

provision under the law of any other jurisdiction.

19. Assignment and Novation

19.1 Neither party may at any time, without the prior written

consent of the other party (such consent not to be

unreasonably withheld or delayed), assign all or any part of

its rights and/or obligations relating to an Engagement.

Notwithstanding the previous sentence, C&W may

assign/novate (as applicable) all or any part of its rights

and/or obligations in connection with an Engagement to any

other member of the C&W Group, without the Client's prior

written consent.

19.2 Each Engagement shall inure to the benefit of, and be binding

upon, the parties' successors and permitted assignees.

20. Further Assurance

Each party shall at all times from the date of the Engagement

Letter, on being required to do so, at its own expense do or

use reasonable endeavours to procure the doing by any

necessary third parties of all such acts as may be required to

give full effect to the terms of the Engagement including the

execution and delivery of all deeds and documents.

21. Governing Law and Dispute Resolution

21.1 In the event of a dispute arising out of or connection with an

Engagement, a party contemplating instigating legal

proceedings shall notify the other party of that fact not less

than fourteen (14) days before issuing such proceedings.

Either party may, upon receipt of notice or otherwise, apply

to the President or the Vice President, for the time being, of

the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, for the appointment of a

single arbitrator, for final resolution. The arbitration shall be

governed by both the Arbitration Act 1996 and the Rules of

Controlled-Cost Arbitration of the Chartered Institute of

Arbitrators (2014 Edition), or any amendments thereof, which

Rules are deemed to be incorporated by reference into this

clause. The seat of the arbitration shall be England.

21.2 Clause 21.1 shall not prohibit a party from applying to the

court, and shall not require such party to serve notice prior to

applying, for interim injunctive relief.

21.3 Each Engagement and any dispute or claim arising out of or

in connection with it or its subject matter or formation

(including non-contractual disputes or claims) are governed

by and shall be construed in accordance with English law.

The parties submit to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the

English courts for all purposes relating to and in connection

with each Engagement and any such dispute or claim.

22. Third Party Rights

22.1 To the extent that any loss, damage or expense is suffered or

incurred by a member of the C&W Group, the parties agree

that such loss, damage or expense shall be deemed to be the

loss, damage or expense of C&W, and such loss shall be fully

recoverable from the Client as if the loss, damage or expense

was suffered or incurred by C&W directly.

22.2 Provided that Clause 22.1 remains valid and in full force and

effect, no term of the Engagement is intended for the benefit

of a third party and the parties do not intend that any term of

the Engagement shall be enforceable by a third party either

under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 or

otherwise. If Clause 22.1 for any reason is or becomes illegal,

invalid or unenforceable, then the rights under each

Engagement shall be enforceable by any member of the

C&W Group.

23. Entire Agreement

23.1 The Engagement constitutes the entire agreement and

understanding between the parties relating to the

transactions contemplated by or in connection with it and the

other matters referred to in the Engagement and supersedes

and extinguishes any other agreement or understanding

(written or oral) between the parties or any of them relating to

the same.

23.2 Each party acknowledges and agrees that it does not rely on,

and shall have no remedy in respect of, any promise,

assurance, statement, warranty, undertaking or

representation made (whether innocently or negligently) by

any other party or any other person except as expressly set

out in the Engagement. The Client's sole remedy in relation

to any act or omission of C&W relating to or in connection

with the Engagement shall be for breach of contract.

24. Miscellaneous Terms

24.1 Each party warrants and represents that it has power to enter

into the Engagement and that it has obtained all necessary

consents and/or approvals to do so.

24.2 The Client agrees that C&W shall be entitled to rely upon

instructions given by any employee or other representative of

the Client, and any person holding themselves out as having

the authority to give such instructions.

24.3 Where the Client comprises two or more persons their liability

in relation to the Engagement shall be joint and several.

24.4 Clauses 1.1, 2, 3, 4.2, 4.3, 6, 7.6, 8, 9.3, 10.4, 11, 12.4, 12.5,

13 to 16 (inclusive), 18 and 20 to 24 (inclusive) of these

Terms of Business shall survive termination of the

Engagement.




24.5 The Client agrees and acknowledges that the Engagement is

between the Client and C&W, and that the Client shall have

no right to make any claim against any member (partner),

director, employee, agent, or contractor of C&W or any

member of the C&W Group or any C&W Affiliate.

24.6 In accordance with the Provision of Services Regulations

2009, C&W is required to make available certain information

to Clients which can be found here.

24.7 In accordance with Section 54, Part 6 of the Modern Slavery

Act 2015, details of the measures C&W has taken to ensure

that slavery and human trafficking is not taking place in its

supply chains or in any part of its business can be found here.


(Version 2.01 – May 2018)

125 Old Broad Street, London EC2N 1AR

cushmanwakefield.com

Regulated by RICS


http://www.cushmanwakefield.co.uk/en-gb/regulatory-information

http://www.cushmanwakefield.co.uk/en-gb/modern-slavery-act



Cushman & Wakefield

St Paul’s House

23 Park Square South

Leeds LS1 2ND

About Cushman & Wakefield

Cushman & Wakefield is a leading global real estate services

firm that helps clients transform the way people work, shop and

live. The firm's 45,000 employees in more than 60 countries

provide deep local and global insights that create significant

value for our clients. Cushman & Wakefield is among the

largest commercial real estate services firms, with core services

of agency leasing, asset services, capital markets, facility

services, global occupier services, investment & asset

management (DTZ Investors), project & development services,

tenant representation and valuation & advisory.

To learn more, visit www.cushmanwakefield.com or follow

@CushWake on Twitter.

© Cushman & Wakefield 2020

Wakefield Council Local Plan Viability Evidence Base

Documents

Transcript of Wakefield Council Local Plan Viability Evidence Base