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
Cushman & Wakefield | Wakefield Council Date: December 2019 Project Ref: 1912UM00
Wakefield Council Local Plan Viability Evidence Base
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.
Cushman & Wakefield | Wakefield Council Date: December 2019 Project Ref: 1912UM00
Wakefield Council Local Plan Viability Evidence Base
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.
Cushman & Wakefield | Wakefield Council Date: December 2019 Project Ref: 1912UM00
Wakefield Council Local Plan Viability Evidence Base
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
headroom for CIL (£psm)
Value area 1 30% Yes £92 30% Yes £92
Value area 2 20% Yes £105 20% Yes £105
Value area 3 10% Yes £31 20% Yes £19
Value area 4 0% Yes £0 10% Yes -£8
Cushman & Wakefield | Wakefield Council Date: December 2019 Project Ref: 1912UM00
Wakefield Council Local Plan Viability Evidence Base
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.
Cushman & Wakefield | Wakefield Council Date: December 2019 Project Ref: 1912UM00
Wakefield Council Local Plan Viability Evidence Base
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.
Cushman & Wakefield | Wakefield Council Date: December 2019 Project Ref: 1912UM00
Wakefield Council Local Plan Viability Evidence Base
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.
Cushman & Wakefield | Wakefield Council Date: December 2019 Project Ref: 1912UM00
Wakefield Council Local Plan Viability Evidence Base
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).
Cushman & Wakefield | Wakefield Council Date: December 2019 Project Ref: 1912UM00
Wakefield Council Local Plan Viability Evidence Base
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.
Cushman & Wakefield | Wakefield Council Date: December 2019 Project Ref: 1912UM00
Wakefield Council Local Plan Viability Evidence Base
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.
Cushman & Wakefield | Wakefield Council Date: December 2019 Project Ref: 1912UM00
Wakefield Council Local Plan Viability Evidence Base
12
Figure 4.1: Comparative development viability
Source: RICS Financial Viability in Planning Guidance Note (1st Edition, 2012)
Cushman & Wakefield | Wakefield Council Date: December 2019 Project Ref: 1912UM00
Wakefield Council Local Plan Viability Evidence Base
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
Cushman & Wakefield | Wakefield Council Date: December 2019 Project Ref: 1912UM00
Wakefield Council Local Plan Viability Evidence Base
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
Cushman & Wakefield | Wakefield Council Date: December 2019 Project Ref: 1912UM00
Wakefield Council Local Plan Viability Evidence Base
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.
Cushman & Wakefield | Wakefield Council Date: December 2019 Project Ref: 1912UM00
Wakefield Council Local Plan Viability Evidence Base
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
Cushman & Wakefield | Wakefield Council Date: December 2019 Project Ref: 1912UM00
Wakefield Council Local Plan Viability Evidence Base
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.
Cushman & Wakefield | Wakefield Council Date: December 2019 Project Ref: 1912UM00
Wakefield Council Local Plan Viability Evidence Base
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.
Cushman & Wakefield | Wakefield Council Date: December 2019 Project Ref: 1912UM00
Wakefield Council Local Plan Viability Evidence Base
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:
Cushman & Wakefield | Wakefield Council Date: December 2019 Project Ref: 1912UM00
Wakefield Council Local Plan Viability Evidence Base
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.
Cushman & Wakefield | Wakefield Council Date: December 2019 Project Ref: 1912UM00
Wakefield Council Local Plan Viability Evidence Base
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
Cushman & Wakefield | Wakefield Council Date: December 2019 Project Ref: 1912UM00
Wakefield Council Local Plan Viability Evidence Base
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).
Cushman & Wakefield | Wakefield Council Date: December 2019 Project Ref: 1912UM00
Wakefield Council Local Plan Viability Evidence Base
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
Cushman & Wakefield | Wakefield Council Date: December 2019 Project Ref: 1912UM00
Wakefield Council Local Plan Viability Evidence Base
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.
Cushman & Wakefield | Wakefield Council Date: December 2019 Project Ref: 1912UM00
Wakefield Council Local Plan Viability Evidence Base
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;
Cushman & Wakefield | Wakefield Council Date: December 2019 Project Ref: 1912UM00
Wakefield Council Local Plan Viability Evidence Base
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
Cushman & Wakefield | Wakefield Council Date: December 2019 Project Ref: 1912UM00
Wakefield Council Local Plan Viability Evidence Base
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.
Cushman & Wakefield | Wakefield Council Date: December 2019 Project Ref: 1912UM00
Wakefield Council Local Plan Viability Evidence Base
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.
Cushman & Wakefield | Wakefield Council Date: December 2019 Project Ref: 1912UM00
Wakefield Council Local Plan Viability Evidence Base
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.
Cushman & Wakefield | Wakefield Council Date: December 2019 Project Ref: 1912UM00
Wakefield Council Local Plan Viability Evidence Base
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
Cushman & Wakefield | Wakefield Council Date: December 2019 Project Ref: 1912UM00
Wakefield Council Local Plan Viability Evidence Base
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 >
Cushman & Wakefield | Wakefield Council Date: December 2019 Project Ref: 1912UM00
Wakefield Council Local Plan Viability Evidence Base
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 flat (3 person) 1 storey 61 657
2 bed house (4 person) 2 storey 70 753
3 bed house (5 person) 2 storey 93 1,001
4 bed house (7 person) 2 storey 115 1,238
5 bed house (8 person) 2 storey 128 1,378
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
Cushman & Wakefield | Wakefield Council Date: December 2019 Project Ref: 1912UM00
Wakefield Council Local Plan Viability Evidence Base
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.
Cushman & Wakefield | Wakefield Council Date: December 2019 Project Ref: 1912UM00
Wakefield Council Local Plan Viability Evidence Base
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
Cushman & Wakefield | Wakefield Council Date: December 2019 Project Ref: 1912UM00
Wakefield Council Local Plan Viability Evidence Base
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)
Value Area 3 2,153 200
Value Area 4 1,938 180
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.
Cushman & Wakefield | Wakefield Council Date: December 2019 Project Ref: 1912UM00
Wakefield Council Local Plan Viability Evidence Base
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
Cushman & Wakefield | Wakefield Council Date: December 2019 Project Ref: 1912UM00
Wakefield Council Local Plan Viability Evidence Base
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.
Cushman & Wakefield | Wakefield Council Date: December 2019 Project Ref: 1912UM00
Wakefield Council Local Plan Viability Evidence Base
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%
Blended profit rate 20% AH 18.55%
Blended profit rate 10% AH 19.31%
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.
Cushman & Wakefield | Wakefield Council Date: December 2019 Project Ref: 1912UM00
Wakefield Council Local Plan Viability Evidence Base
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
Cushman & Wakefield | Wakefield Council Date: December 2019 Project Ref: 1912UM00
Wakefield Council Local Plan Viability Evidence Base
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.
Cushman & Wakefield | Wakefield Council Date: December 2019 Project Ref: 1912UM00
Wakefield Council Local Plan Viability Evidence Base
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).
Cushman & Wakefield | Wakefield Council Date: December 2019 Project Ref: 1912UM00
Wakefield Council Local Plan Viability Evidence Base
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:
Cushman & Wakefield | Wakefield Council Date: December 2019 Project Ref: 1912UM00
Wakefield Council Local Plan Viability Evidence Base
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).
Cushman & Wakefield | Wakefield Council Date: December 2019 Project Ref: 1912UM00
Wakefield Council Local Plan Viability Evidence Base
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.
Cushman & Wakefield | Wakefield Council Date: December 2019 Project Ref: 1912UM00
Wakefield Council Local Plan Viability Evidence Base
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.
Cushman & Wakefield | Wakefield Council Date: December 2019 Project Ref: 1912UM00
Wakefield Council Local Plan Viability Evidence Base
46
Table 8.1: Viability Results at 30% Affordable Housing
Cushman & Wakefield | Wakefield Council Date: December 2019 Project Ref: 1912UM00
Wakefield Council Local Plan Viability Evidence Base
47
20% Affordable housing
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.
Cushman & Wakefield | Wakefield Council Date: December 2019 Project Ref: 1912UM00
Wakefield Council Local Plan Viability Evidence Base
48
Table 8.2: Viability Results at 20% Affordable Housing
Cushman & Wakefield | Wakefield Council Date: December 2019 Project Ref: 1912UM00
Wakefield Council Local Plan Viability Evidence Base
49
10% Affordable housing
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.
Cushman & Wakefield | Wakefield Council Date: December 2019 Project Ref: 1912UM00
Wakefield Council Local Plan Viability Evidence Base
50
Table 8.3: Viability Results at 10% Affordable Housing
Cushman & Wakefield | Wakefield Council Date: December 2019 Project Ref: 1912UM00
Wakefield Council Local Plan Viability Evidence Base
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).
Cushman & Wakefield | Wakefield Council Date: December 2019 Project Ref: 1912UM00
Wakefield Council Local Plan Viability Evidence Base
52
Table 8.4 Policy Scenarios
Policy Scenario 1 Policy Scenario 2
Affordable
housing Policy cost
uplift
Max Average
headroom for CIL (£psm)
Affordable housing
Policy cost
uplift
Max Average
headroom for CIL (£psm)
Value area 1 30% Yes £92 30% Yes £92
Value area 2 20% Yes £105 20% Yes £105
Value area 3 10% Yes £31 20% Yes £19
Value area 4 0% Yes £0 10% Yes -£8
Table 8.5 Policy Scenarios and Compliance with Existing CIL Charging Schedule
Policy Scenario 1 Policy Scenario 2
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
Cushman & Wakefield | Wakefield Council Date: December 2019 Project Ref: 1912UM00
Wakefield Council Local Plan Viability Evidence Base
53
8.17. 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 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.
Cushman & Wakefield | Wakefield Council Date: December 2019 Project Ref: 1912UM00
Wakefield Council Local Plan Viability Evidence Base
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
Cushman & Wakefield | Wakefield Council Date: December 2019 Project Ref: 1912UM00
Wakefield Council Local Plan Viability Evidence Base
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
Cushman & Wakefield | Wakefield Council Date: December 2019 Project Ref: 1912UM00
Wakefield Council Local Plan Viability Evidence Base
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).
Cushman & Wakefield | Wakefield Council Date: December 2019 Project Ref: 1912UM00
Wakefield Council Local Plan Viability Evidence Base
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.
Cushman & Wakefield | Wakefield Council Date: December 2019 Project Ref: 1912UM00
Wakefield Council Local Plan Viability Evidence Base
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
Cushman & Wakefield | Wakefield Council Date: December 2019 Project Ref: 1912UM00
Wakefield Council Local Plan Viability Evidence Base
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.
Cushman & Wakefield | Wakefield Council Date: December 2019 Project Ref: 1912UM00
Wakefield Council Local Plan Viability Evidence Base
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
Policy Scenario 1 Policy Scenario 2
Affordable
housing
Policy cost
uplift
Max Average
headroom for CIL (£psm)
Affordable housing
Policy cost
uplift
Max Average headroo
m for CIL (£psm)
Value area 1 30% Yes £92 30% Yes £92
Value area 2 20% Yes £105 20% Yes £105
Value area 3 10% Yes £31 20% Yes £19
Value area 4 0% Yes £0 10% Yes -£8
10.9. 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.
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.
Cushman & Wakefield | Wakefield Council Date: December 2019 Project Ref: 1912UM00
Wakefield Council Local Plan Viability Evidence Base
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
Date: December 2019
Cushman & Wakefield | Wakefield Council Date: December 2019 Project Ref: 1912UM00
Appendix 1: Attendees at Stakeholder consultation event June 2019
Wakefield Council Local Plan Viability Evidence Base
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
Cushman & Wakefield | Wakefield Council Date: December 2019 Project Ref: 1912UM00
Appendix 1: Attendees at Stakeholder consultation event June 2019
Wakefield Council Local Plan Viability Evidence Base
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
Cushman & Wakefield | Wakefield Council Date: December 2019 Project Ref: 1912UM00
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
Wakefield Local Plan Viability
Wakefield Council I Cushman & Wakefield I 3
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
1 bed flat (2 person) 1 storey 50 538
2 bed flat (3 person) 1 storey 61 657
2 bed house (4 person) 2 storey 70 753
3 bed house (5 person) 2 storey 93 1,001
4 bed house (7 person) 2 storey 115 1,238
5 bed house (8 person) 2 storey 128 1,378
Wakefield Local Plan Viability
Wakefield Council I Cushman & Wakefield I 4
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)
If not, please state why and provide
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
Value area 2 2,476 230
Value area 3 2,368 220
Value area 4 1,938 180
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
Wakefield Local Plan Viability
Wakefield Council I Cushman & Wakefield I 5
• 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.
If not, please state why and provide
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
Wakefield Local Plan Viability
Wakefield Council I Cushman & Wakefield I 6
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%
Blended profit rate 30% AH 17.7%
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
Wakefield Local Plan Viability
Wakefield Council I Cushman & Wakefield I 7
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?
Wakefield Local Plan Viability
Wakefield Council I Cushman & Wakefield I 8
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
Wakefield Local Plan Viability
Wakefield Council I Cushman & Wakefield I 9
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
Cushman & Wakefield | Wakefield Council Date: December 2019 Project Ref: 1912UM00
Appendix 3: Key Variances in responses from consultees to viability assumptions
Wakefield Council Local Plan Viability Evidence Base
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
Cushman & Wakefield | Wakefield Council Date: December 2019 Project Ref: 1912UM00
Appendix 4: Strategic Site Development Appraisal Assumptions
Wakefield Council Local Plan Viability Evidence Base
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
Greenfield or Brownfield land
The site comprises a combination of both greenfield and brownfield land.
Land ownership/tenure
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.
Current planning status of the subject 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.
Details of proposed development
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
Shared Ownership 5 8 3
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.
Please state anticipated sales rate for market units
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.
Affordable housing revenues
20% affordable housing assumed, with 50% rented/ 50% owner occupied split. Transfer values have been assumed as follows:
• 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)
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: £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
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.
• 20% AH – 18.6% 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
• 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
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: 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 or Brownfield land
Greenfield.
Land ownership/tenure
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.
Current planning status of the subject site
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
The site has capacity for the development of 313 units. 0% affordable housing and the below housing mix has been assumed:
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
Sales revenue of £2,045.14 per sq m (£190 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 3 per calendar month has been assumed. This equates to an overall sales period of 104 months.
Affordable housing revenues
0% affordable housing assumed
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: £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
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.
• 0% AH – 20% on GDV
Anticipated / agreed planning obligations
• Section 106 of £1500 per unit payable quarterly in line with housing delivery
• CIL Value area 3 (low) - £0 psm
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 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.
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: 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 or Brownfield land
Greenfield
Land ownership/tenure
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.
Current planning status of the subject site
• Designated Greenbelt in adopted Local Plan • Draft Housing Allocation in Emerging Local Plan (LP39)
Details of proposed development
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
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 3 per calendar month has been assumed. This equates to an overall sales period of 126 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: £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
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 including timing of payments
• Section 106 of £1500 per unit payable quarterly in line with housing delivery
• CIL Value area 2 (medium) £23.47 per sq m
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 (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).
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: 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)
Greenfield or Brownfield land
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.
Land ownership/tenure
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.
Current planning status of the subject site
Draft Allocation, site ref- LP51
Details of proposed development
The site has capacity for the development of 74 units. 30% affordable housing and the below housing mix has been assumed:
2-bed (20%) 3-bed (40%) 4-bed (40%)
Total 15 30 30
Market 10 21 21
AH 4 9 9
Shared Ownership 2 4 5
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.
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 30 months.
Affordable housing revenues
30% affordable housing assumed, with 50% rented/ 50% owner occupied split. Transfer values have been assumed as follows:
• 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)
Build costs (per sq m)
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.
Details of infrastructure and abnormal costs
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
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.
• 30% AH – 17.7% on GDV
Anticipated / agreed planning obligations including timing of payments
• Section 106 of £1500 per unit payable quarterly in line with housing delivery
• CIL Value area 1 (high) £64.54 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 commencing in January 2021
• Construction period – 30 months commencing in July 2021, based upon an average delivery rate of 2.5 units per calendar month
• Sales period – 30 months commencing, offset 6 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: 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 or Brownfield land
Greenfield
Land ownership/tenure
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.
Current planning status of the subject site
• Safeguarded Land in adopted Local Plan. • Draft Housing Allocation in Emerging Local Plan (LP96)
Details of proposed development
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.
Please state anticipated sales rate for market units
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.
Affordable housing revenues
30% affordable housing assumed, with 50% rented/ 50% owner occupied split. Transfer values have been assumed as follows:
• 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)
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: £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
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.
• 30% AH – 17.7% on GDV
Anticipated / agreed planning obligations including timing of payments
• Section 106 of £1500 per unit payable quarterly in line with housing delivery
• CIL Value area 1 (high) £64.54 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 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.
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: 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)
Greenfield or Brownfield land
The site comprises brownfield land as it is located within an area of extensive historic mineral extraction with ongoing operations continuing within the site.
Land ownership/tenure
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).
Current planning status of the subject site
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.
Details of proposed development
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.
Affordable housing revenues
0% affordable housing assumed
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: £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
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.
• 0% AH – 20% on GDV
Anticipated / agreed planning obligations including timing of payments
• Section 106 of £1500 per unit payable quarterly in line with housing delivery
• CIL Value area 3 (low) - £0 psm
• CIL has not been charged on the industrial units in line with the adopted Wakefield Charging Schedule.
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
Residential marketing costs inclusive in above.
£20,000 fixed marketing cost for the industrial units in each phase (£60,000 total) has been assumed.
Development programme
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.
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: 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 or Brownfield land
Greenfield
Land ownership/tenure
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.
Current planning status of the subject site
The site currently designated as Green Belt and Wildlife Habitat Network.
Details of proposed development
The site has capacity for the development of 220 units. 0% affordable housing and the below housing mix has been assumed:
• 2 Bed House: 15% - 33 units
• 3 Bed House: 40% - 88 units
• 4 Bed House: 30% - 66 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
Sales revenue of £1,937.50 per sq m (£180 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 3 per calendar month has been assumed. This equates to an overall sales period of 73 months.
Affordable housing revenues
0% affordable housing assumed.
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: £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
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.
• 0% AH – 20% on GDV
Anticipated / agreed planning obligations
• Section 106 of £1500 per unit payable quarterly in line with housing delivery
• CIL Value area 3 (low) £0 psm
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
• 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.
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: 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.
Please state anticipated sales rate for market units
A sales rate of 3 per month per outlet has been assumed. This equates to an overall sales period of 23 months.
Affordable housing revenues
0% affordable housing assumed
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.
Details of infrastructure and abnormal costs
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.
Current planning status of the subject site
Draft allocation as a Special Policy Area. The draft allocation states that development at the site will include employment, educational commercial facilities and housing.
Allowance for contingencies
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
Anticipated / agreed planning obligations including timing of payments
• Section 106 of £1500 per unit
• CIL Value area 3 (low) £0 psm
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 commencing in January 2021
• Construction period – 23 months commencing in July 2021, based upon an average delivery rate of 3 units per calendar month
• Sales period – 23 months commencing, offset 6 months from the start of construction.
Please provide any other relevant information (eg other costs not included above or grant funding / recoverable investment and additional revenue if applicable)
• Land acquisition agent fee – 1% of RLV
• Land acquisition legal fee – 0.5% of RLV
• Stamp duty – at prevailing rate
Cushman & Wakefield | Wakefield Council Date: December 2019 Project Ref: 1912UM00
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
Development Appraisal Cushman & Wakefield
02 December 2019
APPRAISAL SUMMARY CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD Parkside Hotel, Pontefract Wakefield Local Plan Viability Study
Summary Appraisal for Phase 1
Currency in £
REVENUE Sales Valuation Units m² Sales Rate m² Unit Price Gross Sales
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
NET REALISATION 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
153,634 CONSTRUCTION COSTS Construction m² Build Rate m² Cost
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
3,547,008 Section 106 Costs
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
TOTAL COSTS 24,385,461
PROFIT 5,572,107
Performance Measures Profit on Cost% 22.85% Profit on GDV% 18.60% Profit on NDV% 18.60%
IRR 23.77%
Profit Erosion (finance rate 6.000) 3 yrs 5 mths
Project: Parkside Hotel, Pontefract ARGUS Developer Version: 8.00.000 Date: 02/12/2019
Common Ln, Knottingley Wakefield Local Plan Viability Study
Development Appraisal Cushman & Wakefield
29 November 2019
APPRAISAL SUMMARY CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD Common Ln, Knottingley Wakefield Local Plan Viability Study
Summary Appraisal for Phase 1
Currency in £
REVENUE Sales Valuation Units m² Sales Rate m² Unit Price Gross Sales
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
NET REALISATION 45,493,383
OUTLAY
ACQUISITION COSTS Residualised Price (12.21 Ha 126,616.14 pHect) 1,545,983
1,545,983 Stamp Duty 64,799 Agent Fee 1.00% 15,460 Legal Fee 0.50% 7,730
87,989 CONSTRUCTION COSTS Construction m² Build Rate m² Cost
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
4,966,428 Section 106 Costs
Section 106 469,500 469,500
PROFESSIONAL FEES Professional Fees 8.00% 1,897,912
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
TOTAL COSTS 36,394,707
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
Performance Measures Profit on Cost% 25.00% Profit on GDV% 20.00% Profit on NDV% 20.00%
IRR 19.36%
Profit Erosion (finance rate 6.000) 3 yrs 9 mths
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
Development Appraisal Cushman & Wakefield
02 December 2019
APPRAISAL SUMMARY CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD Land West of Wakefield Road, Normanton Wakefield Local Plan Viability Study
Summary Appraisal for Phase 1
Currency in £
REVENUE Sales Valuation Units m² Sales Rate m² Unit Price Gross Sales
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
NET REALISATION 72,202,156
OUTLAY
ACQUISITION COSTS Residualised Price 3,482,045
3,482,045 Stamp Duty 161,602 Agent Fee 1.00% 34,820 Legal Fee 0.50% 17,410
213,833 CONSTRUCTION COSTS Construction m² Build Rate m² Cost
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
7,752,427 Section 106 Costs
Section 106 570,000 570,000
PROFESSIONAL FEES Professional Fees 8.00% 2,968,484
2,968,484 DISPOSAL FEES
Sales Agent and Marketing Fee 3.00% 2,067,462 Sales Legal Fee 380.00 un 500.00 /un 190,000
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
TOTAL COSTS 58,267,136
PROFIT 13,935,020
Performance Measures Profit on Cost% 23.92% Profit on GDV% 19.30% Profit on NDV% 19.30%
IRR 16.45%
Profit Erosion (finance rate 6.000) 3 yrs 7 mths
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
Development Appraisal Cushman & Wakefield
02 December 2019
APPRAISAL SUMMARY CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD Lingwell Gate Lane, Lofthouse Wakefield Local Plan Viability Study
Summary Appraisal for Phase 1
Currency in £
REVENUE Sales Valuation Units m² Sales Rate m² Unit Price Gross Sales
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
NET REALISATION 16,155,726
OUTLAY
ACQUISITION COSTS Residualised Price 1,762,522
1,762,522 Stamp Duty 75,626 Agent Fee 1.00% 17,625 Legal Fee 0.50% 8,813
102,064 CONSTRUCTION COSTS Construction m² Build Rate m² Cost
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
1,864,616 Section 106 Costs
Section 106 111,000 111,000
PROFESSIONAL FEES Professional Fees 8.00% 616,010
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
TOTAL COSTS 13,296,163
PROFIT 2,859,563
Performance Measures Profit on Cost% 21.51% Profit on GDV% 17.70% Profit on NDV% 17.70%
IRR 27.63%
Profit Erosion (finance rate 6.000) 3 yrs 3 mths
Project: Lingwell Gate Lane, Lofthouse ARGUS Developer Version: 8.00.000 Date: 02/12/2019
Holme Farm - Carleton Wakefield Local Plan Viability Study
Development Appraisal Cushman & Wakefield
02 December 2019
APPRAISAL SUMMARY CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD Holme Farm - Carleton Wakefield Local Plan Viability Study
Summary Appraisal for Phase 1
Currency in £
REVENUE Sales Valuation Units m² Sales Rate m² Unit Price Gross Sales
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
NET REALISATION 45,227,481
OUTLAY
ACQUISITION COSTS Residualised Price 5,621,759
5,621,759 Stamp Duty 268,588 Agent Fee 1.00% 56,218 Legal Fee 0.50% 28,109
352,914 CONSTRUCTION COSTS Construction m² Build Rate m² Cost
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
3,399,270 Section 106 Costs
Section 106 360,000 360,000
PROFESSIONAL FEES Professional 8.00% 1,760,761
1,760,761 DISPOSAL FEES
Sales Agent and Marketing Fee 3.00% 1,141,648 Sales Legal Fee 240.00 un 500.00 /un 120,000
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
TOTAL COSTS 37,222,217
PROFIT 8,005,264
Performance Measures Profit on Cost% 21.51% Profit on GDV% 17.70% Profit on NDV% 17.70%
IRR 18.05%
Profit Erosion (finance rate 6.000) 3 yrs 3 mths
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 £
REVENUE Sales Valuation Units m² Sales Rate m² Unit Price Gross Sales
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
NET REALISATION 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
APPRAISAL SUMMARY LICENSED COPY Darrington Quarry- 0% Affordable Housing Wakefield Local Plan Site Specific Viability
Stamp Duty 682,182 Agent Fee 1.00% 148,936 Legal Fee 0.50% 74,468
905,587 CONSTRUCTION COSTS Construction m² Build Rate m² Cost
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
20,335,280 Section 106 Costs
Section 106 148,500 Section 106 181,500 Section 106 481,500
811,500
PROFESSIONAL FEES Professional Fees 8.00% 7,050,200
7,050,200 MARKETING & LETTING
Marketing 80,000 Letting Agent Fee 10.00% 417,445 Letting Legal Fee 5.00% 208,723
706,168 DISPOSAL FEES
Sales Agent and Marketing Fee 3.00% 2,786,937
Project: Darrington Quarry- 0% Affordable Housing ARGUS Developer Version: 8.00.000 Date: 03/12/2019
APPRAISAL SUMMARY LICENSED COPY Darrington Quarry- 0% Affordable Housing Wakefield Local Plan Site Specific Viability
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
TOTAL COSTS 131,077,758
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
Project: Darrington Quarry- 0% Affordable Housing ARGUS Developer Version: 8.00.000 Date: 03/12/2019
Land East of Wakefield Road, Hemsworth Wakefield Local Plan Viability Study
Development Appraisal Cushman & Wakefield
29 November 2019
APPRAISAL SUMMARY CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD Land East of Wakefield Road, Hemsworth Wakefield Local Plan Viability Study
Summary Appraisal for Phase 1
Currency in £
REVENUE Sales Valuation Units m² Sales Rate m² Unit Price Gross Sales
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
NET REALISATION 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
50,239 CONSTRUCTION COSTS Construction m² Build Rate m² Cost
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
PROFESSIONAL FEES Professional Fees 8.00% 1,903,319
1,903,319 DISPOSAL FEES
Sales Agent and Marketing Fee 3.00% 1,296,653 Sales Legal Fee 220.00 un 500.00 /un 110,000
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
TOTAL COSTS 34,577,400
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
Performance Measures Profit on Cost% 25.00% Profit on GDV% 20.00% Profit on NDV% 20.00%
IRR 24.87%
Profit Erosion (finance rate 6.000) 3 yrs 9 mths
Project: Land East of Wakefield Road, Hemsworth ARGUS Developer Version: 8.00.000 Date: 29/11/2019
APPRAISAL SUMMARY LICENSED COPY Land North of Broad Lane, South Kirkby
Summary Appraisal for Phase 1
Currency in £
REVENUE Sales Valuation Units m² Sales Rate m² Unit Price Gross Sales
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
NET REALISATION 12,138,438
OUTLAY
ACQUISITION COSTS Residualised Price 1,442,373
1,442,373 Stamp Duty 59,619 Agent Fee 1.00% 14,424 Legal Fee 0.50% 7,212
81,254 CONSTRUCTION COSTS Construction m² Build Rate m² Cost
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
PROFESSIONAL FEES Professional Fees 8.00% 534,530
534,530 DISPOSAL FEES
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
TOTAL COSTS 9,710,750
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
Cushman & Wakefield | Wakefield Council Date: December 2019 Project Ref: 1912UM00
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
Wakefield Local Plan Review Cost Report
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
Wakefield Local Plan Review Cost Report
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.
Wakefield Local Plan Review Cost Report
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.
Wakefield Local Plan Review Cost Report
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
Wakefield Local Plan Review Cost Report
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.
Wakefield Local Plan Review Cost Report
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.
Cushman & Wakefield | Wakefield Council Date: December 2019 Project Ref: 1912UM00
Appendix 7: Bentley Project Management Strategic Site Assessments
Wakefield Council Local Plan Viability Evidence Base
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.
Cushman & Wakefield | Wakefield Council Date: December 2019 Project Ref: 1912UM00
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.
Cushman & Wakefield Terms of Business (UK)
Version 2.01 (May 2018) 2
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.
Cushman & Wakefield Terms of Business (UK)
Version 2.01 (May 2018) 3
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
Cushman & Wakefield Terms of Business (UK)
Version 2.01 (May 2018) 4
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
Cushman & Wakefield Terms of Business (UK)
Version 2.01 (May 2018) 5
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.
Cushman & Wakefield Terms of Business (UK)
Version 2.01 (May 2018) 6
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
Cushman & Wakefield Terms of Business (UK)
Version 2.01 (May 2018) 7
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.
Cushman & Wakefield Terms of Business (UK)
Version 2.01 (May 2018) 8
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.
Cushman & Wakefield Terms of Business (UK)
(Version 2.01 – May 2018)
125 Old Broad Street, London EC2N 1AR
cushmanwakefield.com
Regulated by RICS
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