Planning Advisory Service Viability Course GETTING AND USING ADVICE

Topics Getting and using advice Case Studies – Policy – Development Management

Questions about expert advice Where to get advice When to seek advice How to get the best out of advisers

Where to secure advice In-house – Valuer Obligations officer Out of house – District Valuer – Consultants Neither!

Procurement approaches Panel of consultants Main advisor (district valuer, in-house surveyor) Individually tendered to consultant

When to seek professional advice To inform a negotiating position in relation to a specific application or project To guide policy

The differences Policy studies – Higher degree of generalisation appropriate: typologies Standard assumptions about values & costs Not practical to consider how individual sites differ Specific schemes – Detail is required to achieve the required level of usefulness and accuracy

How to get the best out of advice Assessing value Assessing costs Procurement

Approaches to assessing value Sometimes just a phone call will suffice Surveyors reports – Liability restricts outputs Insist that all calculations and background information is provided Sensitivity analysis – Quantified market forecast Particularly from larger consultancies

Different kinds of firm For local firms, distinguish between chartered surveyors and estate agents – One knows valuation and appraisal; one knows local markets ITT requirements – A lot of smaller firms won’t be able to tick all the boxes E.g. H&S, Equal Opportunities, ISO, QA procedures

Assessing costs Need engineering and cost consultancy advice – Generally expensive Cut your cloth accordingly – Some needs can be more easily met than others – Is desktop study going to give you the answer you need?

Procurement advice The brief – Ask for explicit methodology Don’t ask open-ended questions – Be focused in what you want - avoid long ‘shopping lists’ The invitation – Likely to be wide and differing levels of suitability for the job Don’t get wrong firm at right price

CASE STUDIES Plan making Development management

Strategic advice – North Chelmsford AAP Source: North Chelmsford AAP Submission Document

Case study questions 1.Why did they need advice? 2.How did they get it? 3.What did we do for them? 4.What did they do with it?

Why? 1.Need for evidence base 2.Support at Examination 3.Negotiation with developer

Commissioning approach – how? Chelmsford BC approach 3 firms informally RTP helped CBC shape the brief We worked together, collaboratively Key questions – Are req’ments for developer-funded infrastructure sound, justifiable and practically achievable? – How should development be phased to ensure necessary infrastructure can be delivered? – What changes/additions need to be made to NCAAP?

What did we do? Four stages of work Fixed fee, with additions as necessary – E.g. cost consultancy for distributor road Two dimensions of assistance – Technical (deliverability assessment and viability appraisal) – Tactical (AAP and live applications)

What did they do with it? Viability assessment report – evidence Recommended changes to AAP Simple and transparent viability model (A4 sheet) – Taken on board Negotiation and support at EiP – So far so good

Learning point “Simple models may outperform more complex and detailed viability models” Prof McAllister & Dr Wyatt (Reading University)

Site-specific advice – Canada Water, Southwark Source: Conrad Phoenix

Development management case study Key points – Viability a key issue – Resolving differences – a difficulty

2.31 ha site Occupied by 2 large retail sheds – 6,190m²

Proposed uses 430 residential units 4-10 storey buildings Two main “phases” (two architects) 9,104m² retail store (pre-let) 1,287m² of other A1/A3/A4/A5 space 644m² B1 office space 528m² D1/community space Basement car parking 340 cars Extensive public realm improvements

Application context Very experienced planner All other issues resolved – Design – Transport – Land use – etc

Viability context Southwark policy 35% affordable housing Southwark priority for full 106 = c £4m Developer offering <25% affordable Developer advised by Savills Three Dragons model agreed Southwark used Borough Valuer to review inputs

Viability issues Disagreement about important inputs – Purchase price – Build costs – Sales values Three Dragons model – Didn’t provide a solution parties could agree

Issues…cont… No site specific work commissioned by LBS – Relied on generic advice and local comparables – Developer had to commission some extra work on main disputed variables Over 25% affordable housing required politically

Resolution Valuers could not agree In the end, developer made an “offer” to settle -27% affordable housing Agreed to review viability at Phase 2

Lessons Highly competent DM officer but Did not fully understand viability – Forced to rely on internal advisor – Acted mainly as go-between for the two valuers – Could not intervene and negotiate effectively Result was a wasteful process – 9 months of negotiation between valuers – No mechanism for resolution Planners do need to understand viability for the DM process to be efficient