1 / 15

Sustainable Housing Development in Radstone Fields, Northamptonshire

Discover the policy context, inputs, baseline position, costs, and results of the Radstone Fields housing project in Northamptonshire. Learn about the National and Local policy context, affordable housing needs, design codes, and lessons learned from the development process.

wmattson
Download Presentation

Sustainable Housing Development in Radstone Fields, Northamptonshire

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Radstone Fields S. Northamptonshire • 1,000 units • Greenfield location on edge of market town • Overall build out period = 10 years (3 phases) • Essential to 5 year land supply • BrackleyMasterplan (adopted Jan 11) - identified as area for housing growth - extensive guidance on policy objectives

  2. Radstone Fields S. Northamptonshire Policy context: • 40% affordable housing, • CSH level 3 • high quality design & premium product • Town fund • New primary school • Other contributions: public transport; leisure; biodiversity; allotments; health; waste; libraries; police; staff/monitoring costs • Total cost S106 and design £20m, infrastructure £20m (£40,000 per dwelling)

  3. Radstone Fields S. Northamptonshire The process: • Viability discussions commenced Nov 2011 • Model used = Three Dragons toolkit • Researched and agreed individual inputs • Established a baseline position • Agreed a series of different scenarios for consideration by elected members • Resolution to Grant (May 2012) • Appropriate legal agreements (October 2012)

  4. Radstone Fields S. Northamptonshire Inputs & Baseline Position – Revenues: House numbers/types • Majority of dwellings: 2, 3 & 4 bedroom houses • A few 5 bedroom houses, 1 & 2 bed flats & 2 bed bungalows • Market housing mix checked by Connells (Land & Planning) • Maximises revenue, realistic & appropriate for current/future Brackley housing market

  5. Radstone Fields S. Northamptonshire Inputs & Baseline Position – Revenues: House Prices • TW/Barratts supplied house price information • SNC Housing view = some prices too low • Connells (Land & Planning) produced revised house price information (which increased revenues) • Connells data approved by TW/Barratts & landowners and used in modelling

  6. Radstone Fields S. Northamptonshire Inputs & Baseline Position – Revenues: Affordable Housing • Current planning policy: developments over 25 required to provide 40% affordable housing. • Preferred mix: Brackley HNS; waiting list; operational team knowledge • Type: 1 & 2 bed flats; 2 bed houses; 3 bed houses; 4 bed houses; 2 bed bungalows • Tenure: social rent; affordable rent; shared ownership • Affordable housing: level of risk? housing need v. maximised revenue

  7. Radstone Fields S. Northamptonshire Inputs & Baseline Position – Costs: Development Costs • What should these be? • National comparators • Advice from cost consultants: EC Harris (TW); KMCS (SNC)

  8. Radstone Fields S. Northamptonshire Inputs & Baseline Position – Costs:

  9. Radstone Fields S. Northamptonshire Inputs & Baseline Position – Costs Development Costs * Based on total build cost

  10. Radstone Fields S. Northamptonshire Land Value • CLG research (Turner Morum) states land value should be 10-20 times agricultural value • South Northants = £200-400k per hectare • Option Agreement – 2006 for 20 years • Minimum land value within option agreement at top end of range

  11. Radstone Fields S. Northamptonshire Results £13.5 million shortfall • Savings need to be achieved – members need to make informed choices. • Possible Areas for Savings: - Design code (some or all) - Affordable housing - Other planning obligations

  12. Radstone FieldsS. Northamptonshire National policy context – NPPF • LAs should meet the FULL assessed needs for affordable housing in their housing market area • LAs should use design codes where they can help deliver high quality outcomes however these should avoid unnecessary prescription & detail • Consider viability in decision-taking Local policy context • Preserve: environmental well-being - influence design of major developments • Preserve: social well-being - deliver affordable housing which results in balanced communities

  13. Radstone FieldsS. Northamptonshire Design Code v. Affordable Housing Design • Stone to 32 dwelling plots; community building; school • Material & elevation upgrades to dwellings • Public realm improvements Housing Need • 1804 households on waiting list • 377 selecting Brackley for re-housing • 2011/12 – 66 homeless households • Housing need & homelessness increasing

  14. How it worked out The deal Why it worked Willing and informed landowner and developer Political will Officers actively involved in viability appraisal The right size of development with no punitive infrastructure requirements In the right place – would it have worked elsewhere in E Midlands? • 22% Affordable Housing • Affordable rent & shared ownership • Full Design Code • S106 with phased review • All uplift in RV goes to local authority as additional affordable housing on site or as commuted sum • Phased review encourages early start on site

  15. Lessons Learnt Local Authority • Knowledge sharing with planners - capacity building within organisation • Raise corporate awareness of viability issues • Better informed elected members Developer • Consideration of viability much earlier • Submitting viability information with planning application • Adopting open & transparent dialogue with LAs re: revenues & costs • Competing sites – viability increasingly more important issue Both • Development of S106 agreement

More Related