Affordable Homes Dropped from ‘Greener’ Building Scheme
HUGH SULLIVAN
A 200-unit housing development at Blackfriars, to the east of Battle Station, for which outline planning permission was granted in 2020, is to go ahead. But an original condition of the permission, that 70 of the homes should be sold as ‘affordable’, i.e. generally at least 20% below market value, has been dropped.
Meeting last month, the planning committee of Rother District Council (RDC) accepted the conclusion of a Financial Viability Assessment submitted on behalf of the developers that the inflationary increase in building costs over the past two years, not matched by any equivalent rise in property prices, has rendered the delivery of any affordable units “not viable”. The committee approved the detailed lay-out and other reserved matters proposed for the future estate, which is to be built across three former fields at the edge of Battle Great Wood, withdrawing the affordability condition. They did, however, reserve the right under a section 106 Agreement to review the possibility of re-including affordable housing in the scheme, “should viability change”.
Is this the case of a developer playing fast and loose with the planning system to the detriment of local housing policy? Well, hardly. The owner of the land is RDC itself through its housing arm, RDC Housing Company Limited.
It’s council policy to maximise affordability in the sale of units newly built on greenfield sites, and there’s no doubt that this development was promoted with that purpose. But RDC’s own Housing Enabling Officer accepted the figures estimated by external consultants Porter Planning Economics as showing that, even without selling any units at a discount, the prospective profit margin would barely exceed 4%. Any further reduction from this modest return would expose the development – presumably a joint venture between RDC and the building company, though the commercial arrangements between them have not been disclosed – to risk of outright loss.
COSTS CHALLENGE
The RDC case officer’s report to the planning committee suggested that a different mix of housing types, including maisonettes and terraced houses as well as detached and semi-detached houses, could have been delivered at greater profit. She also suggested that the estimated costs appeared excessive “when compared with other schemes that we have reviewed”, though she acknowledged that there were “topographic and ecological challenges in delivering this site”, referring to some steep slopes, uneven ground and wooded boundaries. However, she noted that the building company had been “awarded the contract through a competitive selection process” and that these costs were effectively “agreed” between RDC and this company. Contractual problems would, by implication, arise at this stage if these were challenged.
In discussion at the planning meeting, Cllr Tony Ganly (Conservative) queried whether the proposal to provide heating throughout by air source heating pumps added significantly to the costs so as to render affordable homes unviable. He was told that while this heating system did make the capital cost more expensive, it will “enhance the green credentials of the scheme” and reduce the energy costs of future residents.
Cllr Polly Gray (Green) approved the air source pumps, and went on to query whether the roofs would carry solar panels. She was told that was an option for some at a later design stage.
Neill Tickle, Chief Operating Officer of the Housing Company, told the meeting: “I do think this is an improved scheme – I’m proud of it”. He suggested that, although a retained commitment to affordable housing at the planning stage would render the scheme undeliverable, there would remain the option of pre-selling the majority of homes on the estate to a registered provider “which would end up making a higher proportion affordable”.
Cllr Sue Burton (Green) said that the most important thing was to get the houses built without further delay. The review mechanism allowed the continued hope of some affordable homes if the prices obtained were higher than currently allowed for.
The committee eventually voted unanimously to approve the design, layout and landscaping of the development without retaining any proportion of the units as ‘affordable’, though a review mechanism would be put in place to reconsider affordability in the event of changes in figures for costs and/or sales values.
We hope you have enjoyed reading this article. The future of our volunteer led, non-profit publication would be far more secure with the aid of a small donation. You can also support local journalism by becoming a friend of HIP. It only takes a minute and we would be very grateful.
Leave a Reply