Viking Park Design & Feasibility Study Consultation Report September 2011
Index Introduction
1
1. Summary of the baseline review
2
2. Public consultation findings and responses
11
3. Why some uses preferred by the community are unviable or those viable should be resisted?
12
4. Spatial design and planning principle emerging
13
5. Design options considered, initial viability testing and comparison
18
6. Spatial design principle and building use
24
7. Inter dependence between the project delivery / phasing and the MoD announcement
28
8. Viability
29
9. Possible options for community benefits
31
10. Conclusion
31
Appendix Draft energy framework
34
Analysis of consultation responses
39
Viability assumptions and commentary on the design option
43
High level road alignment options
51
Introduction The Eco-town Delivery Board is tasked with the planning and delivery of Whitehill Bordon’s ‘green town vision’ over the next 10 to 15 years.
Much of the land becoming available in Whitehill Bordon is MoD land and will be released in phases as the Bordon Camp reduces its capacity. However, Viking Park, the subject of this study, is in private holding and is therefore available now to come forward. The Eco-town team on behalf of East Hampshire District Council (EHDC) commissioned this feasibility study to find ways in which this site could be developed in the future in the town’s best interest. In January 2011 a public exhibition was held which provided an opportunity for stakeholders and members of the public to share their thoughts about the site and its opportunities and constraints. Design options for Viking Park were then investigated from a viability and a planning point of view, but also in the context of the town’s wider plans. At the same time a design framework responding to the constraints and opportunities for the site was developed to organise the parcels of development. This work is outlined below along with the results of the options testing and a summary of the planning position.
Viking Park Design & Feasibility Study Consultation Report 1
1. Summary of the baseline review Context Viking Park is the last remaining large and undeveloped plot outside MoD’s ownership and within the settlement policy boundary in Whitehill Bordon. As such it has traditionally been seen as the only site for introducing new employment of any scale to the area. The landowner, Viking Park Holdings, who purchased the site from the MoD, obtained planning permission in 1999 to develop it for employment, leisure and recreation use. With the publication of the Whitehill Bordon Eco-town masterplan, it is clear that Viking Park also plays a strategic role for the future of the wider town beyond providing employment land: -
-
-
It is proposed to run a new access road through the site, this is to relieve the traffic on the existing A325 and provide access to the development sites With the southern edge of the site coinciding with the ‘Green Loop’, which is a proposed network of safe cycle and footpaths linking the green open spaces around the town, Viking Park becomes an important part of the recreational amenity in the longer term As an early project in the Eco-town programme it has the opportunity to demonstrate the Eco-town principles and showcase Whitehill Bordon as an attractive place to live and work.
Out of the baseline review a number of key issues have emerged. These influence the development of the options review. The key issues are: • The ecological sensitivities around the site and particularly the Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) areas
A325 (High Street)
• The A325 alternative road corridor • The planning context
Bordon
• The market review and the potential for alternative uses on the site
Whitehill
The site in relation to the Eco-town masterplan Source: Whitehill Bordon Draft Framework Masterplan, June 2010
2 Viking Park Design & Feasibility Study Consultation Report
Woolmer Trading Estate The Viking Park site (red line) a proposed corridor for a new access road is planned through the site
• Generating viable options and exploring opportunity for community benefit • The views of the local community
Location of proposed new town centre
Proposed ‘Green Loops’ linking green open spaces around the town
Site Plan Consented Area (1999 outline consent for employment and leisure)
HOGMOOR I N C LO S U R E
THE WOODLARK PUB
A32
5
WOOLMER TRADING E S TAT E
Viking Park Design & Feasibility Study Consultation Report 3
Ecology Issues
2
4 Viking Park Design & Feasibility Study Consultation Report
Hogmoor InclosureInclosure SINC SINC boundary. Plate 4: Hogmoor
of access, and associated car parking and landscaping on part of the Viking Park Site. Condition 5 of the consent was that “no development shall take place within the areas hatched on the approved site plan” (see Plate 2 below) and the reason provided was: to ensure that habitats and vegetation of importance are retained in accordance with Policy ENV4 of the East Hampshire District Council Local Plan.
Viking Park Ecological Appraisal December 2010
Balancing pond
Plate 2: Extent of approved Outline Planning Permission (1999), showing ‘hatched’ areas of vegetation to be retained.
The site is also adjacent to the Hogmoor Inclosure Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC), part of which falls within the site boundary. Any permitted development will need to avoid detrimental impact to these areas and will in the event of any planning process need to be subject to further assessments. If the development results in a loss of currently designated SINC area; a suitable replacement could be provided within the wider Eco-town Policy Zone area as part of the Green Infrastructure Strategy (July 2011).
1.3.2 The reserved matters were approved in February 2005 along with consent of a separate planning application for the creation of a balancing pond and restored heathland area. Plate 3 shows the extent of the consented scheme.
Plate 3: Consented balancing pond and restored heathland area (2005)
WSP Environment & Energy
There are a number of ecological sensitivities on and adjacent to the Viking Park Site, including designated sites and protected species data. The Viking Park Site is located close to four European designated sites which carry statutory significance. The Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) report (July 2011) for the Draft Framework Masterplan has considered the impact on these sites and proposed SANG (Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace) provision. The HRA will be updated as the masterplan is revised in the future.
Viking Viking Park Site Park site
2.1.4 In addition to the Hogmoor Inclosure, there are a large number of SINCs in the local area, following four are of most relevance:
The Warren (Dartford warbler, woodlark);
The Slab South (Dartford warbler, woodlark, nightjar);
The Slab North (Dartford warbler, woodlark); and
Hogmoor Pit (sandmartin).
2.2
ECOLOGICAL WORK UNDERTAKEN ON SITE DURING 2003 -2005 BY CARTER ECOLO
Badgers
Consented balancing pond and restored heathland area (2005)
2.2.1 Badgers were found to be present on the Viking Park site during surveys in 2003, including sett and an outlier sett, all used by the same social group. Two artificial setts were constructed in 20 Woodland Hogmoor setts on-siteofwere closed Inclosure in 2004, prior to commencement of the development. The artificial sett lo in Confidential Appendix A (taken from Carter Ecological Ltd, October 2004). Reptiles
2.2.2 Reptiles were identified as present on-site in 2003 and were translocated from the site bet – October 2005. The area from which reptiles were excluded is shown on Plates 5 and 6 below extent of open wet and dry heathland habitat that was present on the Viking Park Site durin remainder of the Viking Park Site was birch woodland and pine plantation).
Planning Baseline The key planning issues in relation to the site are that Viking Park benefits from a long standing planning policy allocation and existing permission for a mixed-use scheme comprising leisure, tourism and employment uses.
1999 Outline planning permission obtained for employment and leisure or recreation use on Viking Park
2002 Access road and infrastructure provided but site stands empty. An alternative application for housing with industrial use is made and refused
However, there has only been minimal take-up for leisure and employment use which raises issues of deliverability. Deliverability is now enshrined in planning policy and is a material consideration. Since the emergence of the wider Eco-town masterplan, where a holistic view for the regeneration of Whitehill Bordon has been considered on the basis of the planned release of MoD land, the planning context for Viking Park has changed significantly.
2006 The Woodlark Pub / restaurant acquires a site and has proved to be very successful
2008 After nine years - Viking Park still largely vacant - Bobby’s Foods is the only other business to locate here. There is no interest for employment or leisure use
2010 The Eco-town masterplan is published and includes Viking Park within its vision
The key alternative uses that could be promoted at Viking Park include retail and residential development. The site would also potentially be suited to a care home and other health-related uses, although the market for any public sector health use is unclear. There is the potential for on-site community facilities to be provided within a genuine mixed use solution for the site, subject to the financial viability of proposals.
Ultimately, the planning related strengths and weaknesses of deliverable uses need to be considered before any potential masterplan options can be derived.
Viking Park Design & Feasibility Study Consultation Report 5
The Road Corridor
Safeguarding the relief road
We have been asked maintain a 22m corridor to accommodate the future intentions set out in the Eco-town masterplan. These are to redirect traffic from the A325 and take it across the Viking Park site via a new road, to access the major portion of new development for the planned town extension.
The approach we have taken to preserving the corridor of land and keeping it free from development to enable a future implementation of the road diversion has been addressed in such a way as to maximise the use of the existing road, with its below ground services and drainage, whilst creating an ‘avenue’ of trees along one side only to accommodate a new cycle path and footway which will also provide a safe, pleasant connection between Whitehill and Bordon. This route need not be sacrificial in the event of a road widening, but will instead be allowed to mature and will set a benchmark for the green pathways envisaged throughout the town as regeneration moves forward.
We do not have to build this road as part of the current plans, but we are asked to ensure a corridor is maintained and a future road connection is not hindered by any development coming forward. We will be exploring the opportunities a new road could bring, and the impact in terms of land take and viability. Noted here through the site analysis are the hurdles that need be over come, notably loss of designated SINC areas and conflict with the natural woodland to the south of the site as well as historic elements such as tumuli and the Drovers’ Road in that area. Alternative routes for the corridor across the site may be explored, but our initial review suggests this may have a negative impact on available development parcels on the site. The council is still in the process of modelling the overarching road and transport network for the town, and results from this may influence decisions taken on both the route and size of corridor required for the new road. Options to locate it to the east, along the old railway line or retaining the A325 and not building a new road are under review outside of this project, however for the purposes of this study we are to proceed with plans to include the corridor.
6 Viking Park Design & Feasibility Study Consultation Report
The final masterplan will be designed in such a way as to facilitate the relief road, but it will also have to function as a layout without the relief road, retaining the existing access as in phase 1, to allow for the eventuality that the diversion for the A325 takes a different route. The safeguarding will result in a loss of developable land in phase 1 and is explained in the viability appendix of the report. A separate piece of highway engineering options study has been commissioned by Hampshire County Council to understand the A325 road options for the wider masterplan. Findings of this study will provide further clarity prior to developing the layout on Viking Park in the future.
Market Commentary –alternative uses for the site. Overall, there are a variety of uses for which there is likely to be strong demand at Viking Park. Unfortunately, the market for the site in its permitted use appears to be very weak and this is illustrated by the difficulties encountered in marketing the site. The key uses for which there is likely to be strong demand are: • Retail (including food retail as an anchor) • Residential • Care home
Constraints and Opportunities We have been advised by the agents for the landowner, Earl Estates, of the minimum commercial position that the land owner is willing to accept. In providing this detail we have been given sight of high level cost and income to date and profit level assumed. We have not, however, audited the detail behind these figures. Instead, we proposed that we undertake an independent review of the market and demonstrate the value of the land based on the options study and the accompanying viability assessment covered within this work.
There is the potential for private/public healthcare developments, but the demand for such uses is unclear. Ongoing discussions with local GPs may result in a demand for a new health centre and associated facilities. It is hoped that permitting development of one or more of the above uses could help attract a secondary use in terms of leisure. Failing that, our aim would be to seek sufficient value for there to be a payment to support some other community improvement off site.
Viking Park Design & Feasibility Study Consultation Report 7
Site appraisal H O G M O O R I N C LO S U R E
VILLAGE HALL
8 Viking Park Design & Feasibility Study Consultation Report
Site appraisal - detailed comments
plus MoD access across site which needs to be maintained
Viking Park Design & Feasibility Study Consultation Report 9
Opportunities
PROPOSAL FOR THE FUTURE A CC E S S R O A D F O R T H E N E W D E V E LO P M E N T / P R O P O S E D RELIEF ROAD
10 Viking Park Design & Feasibility Study Consultation Report
2. Public consultation findings and responses Public consultation began with a presentation to the Whitehill Town Council in November 2010, followed by a stand at the Christmas Fair, where we spoke to members of the public about the site, introduced the work we were going to do, asked them what they would like to see happen on the site and invite them to the public consultation event in January. Between January 18th and January 22nd we held a public exhibition at the Woodlark Pub / restaurant on site to illustrate what we understood about the site and to hear what the public had to say about any future development. We also conducted a site walk to understand properly the surrounding context. At the Christmas fair, we spoke to about 50 people from a diverse cross section of the population. We had the impression that everyone knew the site well. The Woodlark and the Jet garage were both familiar landmarks. Several people from Whitehill gave us the impression that the wider Eco-town proposals were not really relevant for the residents in Whitehill. Almost everyone was hopeful of some new amenity for the town - i.e. somewhere for people to go in their free time. Of those that attended the public exhibition in January, about 40 people filled in questionnaires prepared by the design team either online or at the exhibition itself to express their views. A further planned exhibition of options was not held as the study ruled out all alternatives to that developed here as unviable or contrary to policy.
Summary Points: From the questionnaire response, we know there is a section of the community with a clear view as to why the community originally agreed to allow clearance of the woodland on site in the first place – namely to benefit the wider town with jobs and leisure. There was a strong feeling that Viking Park was the last available area of land that could accommodate significant leisure and employment facilities. Generally comments were very nature focused, and it was clear any solution would need to think very carefully about landscape and biodiversity. If there is not a viable and deliverable solution to the removal of the SINC designated areas through SANG provision, then there will be huge objection to any development on the land without a current consent. The proposition of housing, as foreseen on the site by the wider Eco-town masterplan, was the least favourite alternative land use. However, of the visitors to the exhibition, a large number were known to be members of Bordon Area Action Group (BAAG), a local action group against the Eco-town masterplan. We have responded positively to comments about protecting the woodland, respecting biodiversity and recognising the Woodlark Pub/restaurant as a popular focal point for some members of the community. Aside from land use we have met most of the consultation comments and placed them central to the design process. See consultation results in Appendix.
Viking Park Design & Feasibility Study Consultation Report 11
3. Why some uses preferred by the community are unviable or those viable should be resisted? The extensive marketing history for Viking Park suggests that there is minimal interest in the site as an industrial/employment location. The community has repeatedly asked for leisure provision on this site. Viking Park has been subjected to a targeted marketing campaign to leisure operators which has yielded disappointing results with only one pub operator taking space. King Sturge who has specialist agents in this field has also established that the general location is not supported by a sufficient number of households to make leisure/ tourist development a likely prospect.
Leisure is planned along here
With the Eco-town, the historical planning context for Viking Park changes, as there is now a clear strategy for the provision of both leisure and employment elsewhere in the town masterplan. For example leisure use is foreseen along the community spine. So, in the context of the Eco-town masterplan, leisure is not a viable option for Viking Park. The masterplan supports employment uses on the site.
12 Viking Park Design & Feasibility Study Consultation Report
Viking park
4. Spatial design and planning principle emerging The congested high street currently divides the town, a road diversion will reduce this traffice and help make the ‘One Town’ concept of the Eco-town come true.
The new relief / access road ‘an opportunity for the whole town’
One Town Vision
New road and an avenue of trees
A place for people not traffic
Tree lined cycle route as well
A gateway because this is where new development for the Eco-town starts; a soft gateway of trees because this is what most reflects the character of the area.
Approach view turning left into site ‘A gateway of trees’
A gateway of trees
Minimise damage to woodland
Highways geometry works best here
Avoiding historic tumulii
Viking Park Design & Feasibility Study Consultation Report 13
A new setting for Whitehill Village Hall
Key note buildings at the site entrance ‘The Village Green’ and Whitehill Village Hall
Whitehill Village hall
Not quite a village green
Plan of village hall setting.
A village hall for everyone
The woodland approach, down the hill, to the local square ‘Pub on the plaza’
14 Viking Park Design & Feasibility Study Consultation Report
The woodlark
View of the square
A farmer’s market
Plan of the square
The new local square. Arrival at a hard paved central space – a place to meet, or hold events, a place for a farmers’ market. With the Woodlark pub on the square, this becomes the ‘heart’ of the development
The Hogmoor Inclosure will become SANG space and be open as “public woodland” – new footpaths across the site will help access for the surrounding residents.
The Green Loop and Drovers Road with primary pedestrian and cycle routes
Green loop
Safe and attractive footpaths
The green loop is a key idea on the Eco-town masterplan.
Pleasant cycle routes through trees
Keep the Drovers Road.
Preserving the special character of the site by respecting the trees and woodland was a priority that came out of the consultation.
Views maintained of existing woodland and views from square ‘a woodland setting’
Views of Hogmoor Inclosure
Retaining the link with the woodland character
Viking Park Design & Feasibility Study Consultation Report 15
Overlaying ecology and wildlife links along with swales and balancing pond to support sustainable drainage strategy ‘green links’
Swale
Stream and planting
The balancing pond
Protect wildlife
Biodiversity by design – The green spatial strategy determines the development plots and hence generates the special character for development.
Development parcels formed by green links and tree belts ‘protecting the local character’
Protect the woodland
16 Viking Park Design & Feasibility Study Consultation Report
Preserving the natural wildlife and its habitat was a further strong message in the consultation which we have responded to. Balancing the water cycle on site is an important part of this.
The character of the tree belt
Focal points or places of special interest help organise the relationship of buildings, land use and open space.
Development parcels strengthen and clarify green routes through site providing a framework for land use allocation ‘a green town vision’
Details
Green edge
Street scenes
Turning a corner
Phasing on site relates to the release of the SINC areas. Until the SANG strategy for the Eco-town is in place, development land is restricted
Until SANG becomes available no development can occur in the SINC which is coloured brown here
Prior to A325 diversion starting, need to use existing access road
The layout of the site is influenced by the phasing: Initially only the currently consented area can be developed (phase 1) but as the Eco-town plans progress, and SANG becomes available, then the full site masterplan can be realised.
Viking Park Design & Feasibility Study Consultation Report 17
5. Design options considered, initial viability testing and comparison
•
The area of current permitted development (in yellow)
•
The areas of woodland and new, reinstated heath (brown) are designated as a SINC
•
The tree belt along the A325 (green) is a feature to be retained
•
The existing buildings: Bobby’s Foods and The Woodlark Pub (purple)
•
The requirement for a protected corridor to allow the future development of a new road (blue) to relieve the A325 of traffic
N
To assess at high level the viability of different land use options, we divided the site into development plots which reflect potential parcels of development but also reflect the key issues, constraints and opportunities identified in the baseline review - these are:
A similar plan was done for 3 identified road options: Two with the road passing through the site and one where the road is off site.
Road Option 1 Positive •
From the initial high level road options work carried out by WSP in consultation with Hampshire County Council, the road geometry conforms with the overarching transport model and is likely to prove deliverable
Road Option 1
alignment with current road and its services is a cost effective solution
Negative
•
new setting for village hall could be beneficial
•
conflict with woodland
•
junction with existing A325 is feasible
•
crosses line of old drovers road
•
large land take for road corridor
•
18 Viking Park Design & Feasibility Study Consultation Report
Road Option 2
Road Option 2 was rejected on the grounds that the road geometry would not achieve the design standards required by the overarching highways design for the diversion of the A325 and it would therefore present a considerable planning risk to the overall project.
Positive • reduces area of land take on Viking Park site • avoids woodland and Drovers Road • avoids sloped terrain
Having identified two possible road options, we established land use options across the site based on the following possible scenarios which emerged as potentially viable out of the base line market review:
Negative • awkward junction with the existing road on site • tighter radius of bends poses planning risk for road design
A) a retail led mixed use plan B) a housing led mixed use plan
• infringes on Woodlark owned land • Loss of a number of valued trees
Road Option 2
We simulated realistic quantities of development based on plot ratios for each parcel of developable land, both within the areas of permitted development and including some areas within the SINC designated land. We ran viability tests for each scenario for the two selected road options (Road Options 1 and 3) to evaluate the impact of the road corridor on viability for the site as a whole but also to demonstrate under Road Option 3, the scenario where the MoD does not leave, and the A325 is not diverted at all.
Road Option 3 No road on site, this could either be due to an alternative route, but also reflects scenario of MoD not moving.
Alternative option for road
Positive • minimises land take and hence costs for Viking Park
Negative • If MoD does not move, no longer a potentially expanding town and it may be more difficult to attract investment to the site. • Delivery difficulty in alternative options
Alternative option for road
Road Option 3
Viking Park Design & Feasibility Study Consultation Report 19
During the baseline review, in chapter 1, it was established only retail and housing or a mix of both would be viable on the site. A range of scenarios were tested on Road Option 1and 3
Road option 1
A – Retail Led Mixed Use Scenario Positive •
provides employment
•
reflects real market interest
•
very high values could support maximum community benefit e.g : sports hall and / or start up business units / upgrade to Whitehill Village Hall, subject to viability
•
critical mass of retail could attract commercial leisure such as cinema / cafes / commercial gym etc.
•
phasing could allow for temporary outdoor leisure facility such as sports pitch
Negative •
possible long term conflict with town centre vision
•
conflict with short term commercial interests in Forest Centre
•
contrary to current planning policy
•
retail and supermarket will generate significant vehicle traffic from outside – this could conflict with Eco-town vision
•
The community may not agree that retail is the employment opportunity they wish to see.
20 Viking Park Design & Feasibility Study Consultation Report
Road option 3
As there was a risk that any new retail would be detrimental to the future of the planned new town centre, a sequential test report was commissioned by EHDC. The key findings from this are outlined below: The Nathaniel Lichfield Study, dated May 2011, considered four potential sites (including Viking Park) to establish which was best suited to accommodating future retail growth/floorspace in Whitehill Bordon. This assessment focussed on the sequential location of the alternative sites relative to the proposed new town centre next to High Street- Chalet Hill and at Prince Phillip Barracks. The four sites considered, comprised: • • • •
Louisburg Barracks Bordon Trading Estate Woolmer Trading Estate Viking Park
The study suggested that large scale retail use at Viking Park would not be appropriate and stressed that such use could have adverse impacts on existing retail uses in Whitehill Bordon and the longer term aspirations for the town centre. The study identified that retail uses at Viking Park would not be well located in relation to existing retail uses at Chalet Hill and the Forest Centre. Furthermore, the report suggested that development at Viking Park would not satisfy Policy TC2 of the Local Plan which states that: Policy TC2 ‘At the edge-of-centre of, and outside existing town, district and local centres large scale retail uses, including superstores, hypermarkets, and retail warehouses and large scale leisure and entertainment uses will only be permitted if:
There is an identified need for the development; a sequential approach has been adopted to show there are no sites that are suitable, viable or available for such development in the town, district or local centre; and in the case of proposals outside existing centres there are no sites that are suitable, viable or available for such development on the edge-of-centre they are within a settlement policy boundary; either by themselves, or cumulatively with other such proposals or developments, they do not adversely affect the vitality or viability of nearby town, district and local centres ; they are easily accessible by car, public transport, bicycle and on foot; and they are not on land allocated for housing (Policies H1 and H2), industry and business (Policy IB1), and open space (Policy R4) and are required to meet the employment, housing and recreation objectives of the Plan.’ Retail development at Viking Park is also contrary to key policy approaches set out in PPS4, which sets out national planning policy objectives to sustain the vitality and viability of town centres. Overall, the research suggested that the proposed new town centre at High Street- Chalet Hill and at Prince Phillip Barracks is the most appropriate location for major retail growth in Whitehill Bordon. The findings of the NLP Study are noted in terms of large scale retail use at Viking park which might prejudice investment in major new retail facilities in the new town centre at High Street/Chalet Hill and Prince Phillips Barracks. There is retailer interest in Viking Park and pre application consultation has already taken place by a national convenience retailer for a supermarket. Other smaller scale retail development such as a neighbourhood supermarket will need to be consistent with Policy TC2 and PPS4 or their successors if it is to be appropriate.
Viking Park Design & Feasibility Study Consultation Report 21
B – Housing Led Mixed Use Positive •
provides some employment
•
reflects real market interest
•
would provide a valuable ‘showcase‘ to help ‘kick start’ the wider Eco-town regeneration
•
moderate values could support community benefit e.g. contribution to leisure off site - subject to viability tests
•
phasing could allow for temporary outdoor leisure facility such as sports pitch.
•
in line with framework masterplan.
Road option 1
Negative •
Housing is perceived by parts of the community as least preferred option
•
Retail may be detrimental to town centre viability.
22 Viking Park Design & Feasibility Study Consultation Report
Road option 3
The location of the site lends itself to residential-led mixed use given the location in proximity to residential areas. Mixed use might include health related and community use, and possibly neighbourhood local shopping but also an employment element. However, such proposals, in common with all potential uses on the site, are subject to the usual constraints regarding financial viability and market demand. The location of residential development at Viking Park would contribute to the delivery of new housing to support the town, which would in-turn help to sustain future employment and other commercial uses in the town centre. As such, the proposals offer the dual advantages of comprising a deliverable solution for Viking Park and contributing towards the long term delivery of the Eco-town aspirations. The scale of potential development at Viking Park presents the opportunity for a mix of housing types in accordance with identified local needs. Therefore, whilst the proposals for residential development at Viking Park do not accord with the extent planning permission or adopted Local Planning Policy, they do provide a sustainable development solution for the site, given that development in existing use has not materialised. The proposals will not be to the detriment of longer term aspirations for the Eco-town.
Viking Park Design & Feasibility Study Consultation Report 23
6. Spatial design principle and building use Vision: Change starts today! Build a new local centre with •
‘The pub on the plaza’ – new landscaping and public square to improve setting of Woodlark – could be transformed to farmers’ market one day of the week and have a permanent sculpture exhibit.
•
A new local neighbourhood centre with accommodation for small shops / café / small business units or community space. Ground floor is commercial, apartments above and town houses alongside.
•
A range of character areas - low energy house designs and sustainable neighbourhood clusters with street-scape and landscaping demonstrating the principles of the Green Town Vision
•
Biodiversity by design - a respect for the green links across the site, using water and landscape to balance the natural habitat needs with new development opportunities
New Square - Opportunity for local events such as May Day Dance, Farmers’ Market, village fair etc
Balancing natural habitat’s ecological needs with new development
24 Viking Park Design & Feasibility Study Consultation Report
Building a new neighbourhood square
Viking Park Design & Feasibility Study Consultation Report 25
Indicative housing led masterplan A NEW BUILDING FOR WHITEHILL VILLAGE HALL
with improved facilities and an opportunity for a community building as landmark for Eco-town
“ T H E G R E E N LO O P ”
is one of the big ideas from the wider Eco-town masterplan linking all the leisure and recreation spaces
L I N K S TO W O O D L A N D
can be designed for both people and wildlife
BALANCING POND AND WETLAND AREA
as part of sustainable water cycle strategy and for enhanced biodiversity Whitehill village green - a new landscaped setting for tumuli
HOGMOOR I N C LO S U R E
A 325 D I V E R S I O N
avoids ancient tumuli and minimises damage to woodland
fully open to public access
W I D E R E CO - TO W N MASTERPLAN
T R E E L I N E D C YC L E WAY A N D F O OT PAT H
leads to new town centre
NEW ROAD DIVERSION
S WA L E S A N D T R E E B E LT
for drainage strategy and wildlife habitat also to screen industrial units
P E T R O L S TAT I O N
is likely to move once A325 diverted
EXISTING PETERSFIELD ROAD
with much reduced traffic and good bus service
WOODLAND
- could be a designated nature reserve
OLD DROVERS ROAD
and significant trees protected wherever possible
26 Viking Park Design & Feasibility Study Consultation Report
A NEW NEIGHBOURGHOOD CENTRE
such as office / retail / cafe at ground floor with residential above and alongside. This would be a new, local neighbourhood centre in line with wider Eco-town plans
GOOD VIEW OF SITE FROM HIGH STREET
Pedestrian access to Viking Park would be beneficial here
- opportunity for distinctive corner feature
Indicative retail led masterplan A NEW BUILDING FOR WHITEHILL VILLAGE HALL
with improved facilities and an opportunity for a community building as landmark for Eco-town
“ T H E G R E E N LO O P ”
is one of the big ideas from the wider Eco-town masterplan linking all the leisure and recreation spaces
L I N K S TO W O O D L A N D
can be designed for both people and wildlife
BALANCING POND AND WETLAND AREA
as part of sustainable water cycle strategy and for enhanced biodiversity
opportunity for landmark feature
Whitehill village green - a new landscaped setting for tumuli
HOGMOOR I N C LO S U R E
A325 DIVERSION
avoids ancient tumuli and minimises damage to woodland
fully open to public access
W I D E R E CO - TO W N MASTERPLAN
T R E E L I N E D C YC L E WAY A N D F O OT PAT H
leads to new town centre
NEW ROAD DIVERSION
S WA L E S A N D T R E E B E LT
for drainage strategy and wildlife habitat also to screen industrial units
P E T R O L S TAT I O N
is likely to move once A325 diverted
EXISTING PETERSFIELD ROAD
with much reduced traffic and good bus service
WOODLAND
- could be a designated nature reserve
OLD DROVERS ROAD
and significant trees protected wherever possible
A N E W LO C A L S U P E R M A R K E T
with an employment zone alongside
GOOD VIEW OF SITE FROM HIGH STREET
Pedestrian access to Viking Park would be beneficial here
- opportunity for distinctive corner feature
Viking Park Design & Feasibility Study Consultation Report 27
7.
Inter dependence between the project delivery / phasing and the MoD announcement Phase 1 2010 to 2014 - development around the
2015 – 2019
2010 – 2014
existing infrastructure (access road etc.) on land permitted for development. Corridor for relief road maintained pending further
The diversion of A325 goes in on Viking Park
Viking Park could be the first larger scale site to be developed in addition to other early releases of MoD sites such as Quebec Barracks hence a beacon for the whole town
Hogmoor and Bordon Inclosure opened up for public access
Phase 1
Phase 2
The first phases will be developed around existing
As SANG areas are designated off site, further plots on site
infrastructure on land permitted for development
can be developed
28 Viking Park Design & Feasibility Study Consultation Report
decision on the diversion of the A325 is subject to viability. (Phase 2 current plan for 2015 onwards.) In order to progress any development on the remaining land on Viking Park, the open space strategy for the wider Eco-town must be implemented to such an extent that SANG provision can be found off site to release the SINC designated areas.
8. Viability As a summary, initial viability work on a number of land use options identified that both a retail led scheme and a residential led scheme could be viable, generating a positive residual land value in both scenarios. Although health uses such as GP surgery and extra care housing for the elderly would also be viable options, due to lack of demand at this stage, these do not feature in the further assessment. A financial model has been developed to assess the impact on the masterplan of differing highway layouts for the road corridor on both a retail led scheme and a residential led scheme. Fuller details of all the assumptions and options tested in this model are available in the Appendix, along with details of the Landowners expectations on return. An independent market report was produced by King Sturge who were provided with a site plan which showed a potential developable area totalling 5.07 hectares (12.53 acres) in two phases - phase 1 (plots 1A to E) on land carrying development consent - albeit of different use classes; and phase 2 (plots E to F) on land currently designated as SINC. An allowance in the developable area was made for the road corridor and sensitive green areas. The market report recommended that the site could support a development density of between 40 and 45 dwellings per hectare, although 40 dwelling per hectare was thought to be more achievable / appropriate in light of the local agent advice. The report also provided housing values averaging ÂŁ212/sqft, along with a housing mix which provided a basis for the financial modelling.
1D
2B
1E
2C 2D
2A
2E
1C
2F 1B
1A
PLOT
(AREA)HA) Proposed Use
1A 1B 1C 1D 1E 2A 2B 2C Green Corridor 2D 2E 2F Total
0.74 0.64 0.73 0.37 0.47 0.17 0.51 0.47 0.48 0.69 0.2 0.59 6.06
Development Development Development Development Development Development Community Use Development Open Space Development Development Development
Total development 5.07 area
Viking Park Design & Feasibility Study Consultation Report 29
Summary of the findings of the financial modelling
C Reducing the build costs
The initial viability work focuses on Phase 1 land alone, as this is ready for development now, and is not dependent on external factors to come forward.
D Changing the tenure split within the affordable housing
The retail led scheme combines the provision of a supermarket of approximately 2,750m2 with residential development. Under this scenario the residential element accords with the Council’s affordable housing planning policy requirement of 35% with a preferred tenure mix and no public subsidy. This is facilitated by the retail provision which is a high value generator, providing sufficient cross subsidy to support wider community benefit. The residential led scheme also accords with the Council’s affordable housing planning policy requirement of 35% with a preferred tenure mix and no public subsidy in the first instance. However, due to the absence of any public subsidy for affordable housing, the private residential element does not generate sufficient cross subsidy for the scheme to be considered viable within the baseline assumptions. Further assessment was undertaken specifically on this scenario, identifying a number of options to change the standard assumptions of the baseline in the financial model (these are explained in further detail in the appendix) to enhance the overall residual value. These included: A Assume public subsidy was found to be available B Increasing the predicted value of the private sale units
30 Viking Park Design & Feasibility Study Consultation Report
E Changing the quantum of affordable housing F A combination of changing affordable tenure and quantum (items D&E), G Increasing density of housing By reducing the quota of affordable housing, and changing the tenure split (items F&G), a positive land value can be achieved under the residential led scenario - albeit insufficient to meet the landowner’s expectations. Also, further aspirations for community benefit and employment creation on the site put further strains on the viability. As stated above, initial viability work focuses on Phase 1 land. Going forward, if the full 5.07 Hectare site area is included ( ie assume Phase 2 land also becomes available), extra value could be extracted, subject to agreeing a land value with the landowner. This additional uplift in value can be used to enhance and improve on any concessions made in the baseline assumptions, as well as helping to improve the provision of community benefit from the site such as those outlined in section 12. Although there is a threshold on land value which will activate the MOD covenant and will enable the MOD to claim 50% of any uplift in development value, our analysis to date has not triggered this threshold.
9. Possible options for community benefits Any community benefit needs surpluses, so viability must be first priority. •
Upgrade of the Whitehill Village Hall and improved setting
•
Provision of a temporary youth building and outdoor play space affiliated to the village
•
Extra parking for leisure access to Hogmoor Inclosure
•
Provide a community meeting room / facility in one of the new buildings on site
•
Provide temporary ‘leisure pavilion’ and kickabout space during early phases on as yet non developable land – concern raised regarding the management of such facilities
•
Encourage the owners of the Woodlark Pub in their deliberations over extending to provide games room
•
Providing calendar of public events on new neighbourhood square
It is not possible at this stage to make any recommendations for one option or a combination of options as they are all subject to the final outcome of the viability of the scheme.
10. Conclusion We have explored all the potential use classes for development on the site, and work concludes that there are only two options which are currently economically feasible, both of which are contrary to current planning policy. Within the timescale of the study, it is difficult to draw the final preferred option to development on this site. The retail led solution, although attractive to the developer, because it would considerably raise the land value, has limited attraction for the community and masterplan. It would provide some immediate employment and could be used as a lever to provide more community benefit. However specialist retail consultants Nathanial Litchfield and Partners (May 2011 report) have concluded that the site is sequentially out-of-centre and not preferred over the new town centre. A food supermarket on this site would undermine delivery of the new town centre. At the time of drafting this report, a pre-application enquiry for a neighbourhood supermarket has been submitted to the local authority for consideration and this is still under review. If submitted, the decision by the Local Planning Authority will be of material consideration in deciding on the retail led solution. Until this application is determined, there is limited benefit in progressing further works on other options.
Viking Park Design & Feasibility Study Consultation Report 31
The residential led mixed use option is more in keeping with the masterplan and has the potential to deliver a thriving mixed-use addition to the Eco-town. With the Woodlark pub and a new neighbourhood centre as well as some commercial or retail space next to the new square; new homes with integral office space, employment and a revitalised Whitehill Village Hall, Viking Park has the potential to be a thriving, model neighbourhood and a beacon for the Eco-town vision . However, our consultation showed that there is local resistance to housing on the site. This opposition to housing first appeared when the Viking Park site was seen as the only available site within the town for employment or leisure. With the imminent release of MoD lands this objection may be lessened over time, as other, more appropriate sites become available. The employment and leisure solution, for which the site already has planning permission, will become more feasible over time as interest in the eco-town grows. But at the moment it is not proving particularly attractive to investors. In addition, there is a separate study being undertaken to look at alternative routes for the A325 diversion. The basis of our study has been to review the viability of development in the light of an anticipated road corridor through Viking Park. It is anticipated that various alternative routes will be considered in this study, with a recommendation for the preferred option. The outcome of this study will have an impact on viability and layout of the Viking Park site.
32 Viking Park Design & Feasibility Study Consultation Report
Neither option which is financially viable to the developer is compliant with the current planning policy or supported by the Delivery Board and community The site was purchased by the current owners during very different economic times; it may be that development on this particular site will have to wait until better trading conditions apply. The design and feasibility study is published as a consultation document to inform revisions to the masterplan,community engagement and planning decision on the site.
Appendix
Draft energy framework A retail store would need to meet BREEAM Excellent. BREEAM (BRE Environmental Assessment Method) is a leading and widely used environmental assessment method for buildings. It sets the standard for best practice in sustainable design.
To summarise the targets; • Part L1A 2010 • Part L1A 2013 equivalent to Code Level 4* Ene1
As well as energy conservation in fabric and appliances such as refrigeration the renewable energy strategy is likely to consist of PV, solar thermal or mini-CHP depending on the economic feasibility, space constraints and client aspirations at detailed design stage. Waste heat recovery is also an option.
The following fabric and services energy efficiency standard has been set for all scenarios. The specification has been chosen as an ambitious but viable standard that can achieve compliance with Part L1A 2010 without the need for further low and zero carbon technologies.
Retail has particular constraints thanks to the tenanted nature of buildings where decisions may be made by tenants and are not known at this design stage yet they influence the approach to energy. Also in a fast moving arena, funding incentives are predicted to change over the next 2 years, depending on FiT review, RHI final scheme and Green Deal drivers which all influence the energy strategy. The following provides a high level energy strategy approach for three standard house types representative of the types that might be constructed on Viking Park. The energy strategy approach takes a basecase energy efficiency standard and applies a range of low and zero carbon technology packages to meet Ene1 for Code Level 4*, equivalent to a 25% CO² reduction from Part L1A 2010. The following house types have been analysed; • 2 bed 4 person 60m2 mid-terrace • 3 bed 5 person 91m2 mid-terrace • 4 bed 6 person 112m2 mid-terrace
Base case energy efficiency standard
Fabric U-values W/m²K
Ventilation
Heating
Lighting
Roof
0.11
External Walls
0.15
Party Walls
0
Ground Floor
0.13
Windows
1.4, g-value= 0.4
Doors
1
y-value
AAC
Air Tightness m3/m2/hr@50pa
3m3/m2hr
Mechanical Ventilation
MVHR 90% efficiency, 0.5W/(l.s) specific fan power
Boilers
Keston Gas regular condensing efficiency (90.3%)
Controls
Programmer, room thermostat, TRVs, weather compensator & delayed start
Water Heating
300L (Types M3.1& M1.13), 250L for (M1.9a), 200L for (Type M1.3) 80mm insulation
Secondary Heating
No
Low Energy lighting
100%
Table 1: Base case energy efficiency standard
34 Viking Park Design & Feasibility Study Consultation Report
Low and Zero Carbon technology options Using the above base case energy efficiency standard, a number of technology options have been analysed as means to achieve the 25% CO² reduction from Part L1A 2010 required by Code Level 4. These options are; 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Energy Efficiency Energy Efficiency + Solar hot water+ PV Energy Efficiency + PV Energy Efficiency + Exhaust air heat pump Energy Efficiency + Air source heat pump Improvements over Part L1A 2010 for different house types under different scenarios
Dwelling Description 2B4P 60m² mid-terraced
3B5P 91m² mid-terraced
4B6P 112m² mid-terraced
Options
Technology Description
Der (Kg/CO²/M2)
Ter (Kg/CO²/M2)
Dwelling Description
Improvement Over Part L1a(2010) %
Part L1a 2010 Pass/Fail
Part L1a 2013 Pass/Fail
2B4P 60m2 mid-terraced
1.23%
PASS
FAIL
1
Energy Efficiency Basecase measures
18.5
18.73
2
SHW+PV
4sqm SHW, 0.15 kWp PV
13.93
18.73
25.63%
PASS
PASS
3
PV only
0.65 kWp PV
13.94
18.73
25.57%
PASS
PASS
4
NIBE EAHP
200P Fighter
20.06
31.23
35.77%
PASS
PASS
23.38
31.23
25.14%
PASS
PASS
8.69%
PASS
FAIL
5
ASHP
NIBE F2015 6kW ASHP
1
Energy Efficiency Basecase measures
12.92
14.15
2
SHW+PV
6sqm SHW, 0.03 kWp PV
10.52
14.15
25.65%
PASS
PASS
3
PV only
0.67 kWp PV
10.54
14.15
25.51%
PASS
PASS
4
NIBE EAHP
360P Fighter
13.7
23.46
41.60%
PASS
PASS
11.64
23.46
50.38%
PASS
PASS
5.25%
PASS
FAIL
25.65%
PASS
PASS
PASS
PASS
5
ASHP
NIBE F2015 6kW ASHP
1
Energy Efficiency Basecase measures
15.7
16.57
2
SHW+PV
12.32
16.57
6sqm SHW, 0.24 kWp PV
3B5P 91m2 mid-terraced
4B6P 112m2 mid-terraced
3
PV only
0.90 kWp PV
12.32
16.57
25.65%
4
NIBE EAHP
360P Fighter
16.26
27.68
41.26%
PASS
PASS
5
ASHP
NIBE F2015 6kW ASHP
13.98
27.68
49.49%
PASS
PASS
Table 2: House types energy strategy options and results
Table 3: House types energy strategy results compared to Part L1A 2010 and 2013
Viking Park Design & Feasibility Study Consultation Report 35
Alternative strategy options The above has demonstrated for a number of house types a range of technology options that can be applied to a base case energy efficiency standard to meet the Ene1 requirements of Code Level 4*. Beyond this approach there are a number of alternative and supplementary strategy options that could be considered. - Fabric only approach to Ene1 Code Level 4 It is possible by improving on the base case energy efficiency standard above that Part L1A 2013 could be achieved using only fabric measures. This would entail improving the roof and floor u-values, the windows to triple-glazing and reducing the airtightness further. Whilst this is technically feasible, the skills to do this on a large scale are not so prevalent and requiring this as a standard approach on the site has the potential to increase costs as contractors price in an element of risk to meeting the standard. However there could be an opportunity to incentivise this practice amongst house builders and contractors through some form of financial incentivisation. - Community Heat Networks Community heat networks are unlikely to be viable as a site-wide solution due to the densities of development however they could be employed on a block-by-block level across the site utilising biomass boilers, ground source heat pumps or air source heat pumps. The advantages of such an approach over individual dwelling systems would be the removal of the technologies from the dwellings increasing internal space and reducing maintenance requirements for the residents although an external maintenance contract would still be needed.
36 Viking Park Design & Feasibility Study Consultation Report
Space would need to be provided beyond the dwelling boundaries to house the energy centres and designed to integrate into the overall masterplan. The viability of such systems will be dependent on a number of factors including the heat demand of the dwellings which is a direct correlation of the fabric energy efficiency specification proposed, the technology choice cost and potential income from the Renewable Heat Incentive. As the site viability is currently marginal, the recommended option would be to specify the base case energy efficiency standard along with technology Option 2 - solar hot water and PV, to achieve code level 4 on all houses. - Revised Zero Carbon definition and Carbon Compliance The national definition for Zero Carbon is currently being revised and will be incorporated into future revisions to the Code for Sustainable Homes. The new definition is based on a hierarchical approach which comprises; •
Ensuring an energy efficient approach to building design
•
Reducing CO² emissions on-site through low and zero carbon technologies and connected heat networks
•
Mitigating the remaining carbon emissions through Allowable Solutions, which secure carbon savings away from the site
Adopting these standards would bring the dwellings in line with the revised working definition of Zero Carbon and would demonstrate a more exemplary standard of sustainable design in line with the founding principles of the Eco-towns project.
The first two steps are together referred to as Carbon Compliance. The Zero Carbon Hub report, “Carbon Compliance: Setting an appropriate limit for Zero Carbon New Homes” has recommended the following levels for Carbon Compliance;
- PV rent-a-roof on dwellings A number of energy supply companies have taken advantage of the Feed-In-Tariff to offer what are commonly referred to in industry as rent-a-roof schemes. Under these schemes, the provider uses the roof to install a PV array at no capital cost to the house builder or resident. The resident enjoys reduced energy bills by using a proportion of the energy from the PV whilst the provider takes the Feed-In-Tariff rates and the income from energy sales back to the grid. Whilst there are issues with regard to access, ownership and insurance to be understood on these schemes, the replacement of the roof with PV roofs could significantly increase CO² reductions.
•
Current recommendations to apply to ‘built’ performance within 2016 Building Regulations:
-
10 kg CO²(eq) /m2/year for detached houses
Again finding some way of incentivising this option or at least introducing it early on in the design process could increase take up and the ensuing benefit to residents.
-
11 kg CO²(eq) /m2/year for attached houses
Extending the benefits to the existing community
-
14 kg CO²(eq) /m2/year for low rise apartment blocks (four storeys and below)
•
The equivalent percentage improvements on the Part L1A 2006 standard would be approximately:
-
60% for detached houses
In line with the principles of the Eco-town to provide benefits to the existing community, the PV rent-a-roof scheme could be introduced and facilitated for existing residents of the town so that they too can take advantage of the scheme and the principles underlying the design of Viking Park.
-
56% for attached houses
-
44% for low rise apartment blocks
Viking Park Design & Feasibility Study Consultation Report 37
Further this could be extended to the roofs of the adjacent industrial park owned by the council. Depending on shading and orientation these roofs could be filled with PV panels become an income source for the council. There are examples of industrial solar roofs appearing across the UK and even examples of where these have been financed by community share offers to provide long-term benefit and income to the existing community. Examples; •
Solar Industrial Roofs – quite popular on the continent in countries where they have had Feed-In-Tariffs for longer. http://www.solarcentury.co.uk/about-us/latest-news/firstbritish-farm-roofs-removed-to-make-way-for-solar/
•
The Ouse Valley Energy Services Company Ltd was formed with the aim of delivering a range of energy-related projects to the people and businesses of Lewes district http://www.ovesco.co.uk/
38 Viking Park Design & Feasibility Study Consultation Report
Analysis of consultation responses Consultation event - the ‘Your Views’ exhibition and questionnaire January 18th to 22nd at the Woodlark Pub + Site walkabout 22nd January
Questionnaire response Q1 Are you familiar with the Viking Park site, and do you know the neighbourhood here? (please tick one of the following)
Q4
65% knew it well 23% know the site from just driving by 12% were not familiar with the site
1.
45% - natural features (incl. all comments with rural; trees; open space, wildlife)
2.
7% - the Woodlark pub as amenity
3.
11% - potential for development
4.
6% - central location (e.g. access to shops, access to countryside, close to town centre)
5.
10% - other (e.g. friends live here; no houses; Indian takeaway)
Q2 Do you live within walking distance of the site? 76% said Yes 24% said No
Tell us the three best things about this part of Whitehill Bordon Of the total 100 answers to this question we grouped the following:
Other Central Location
Potential for development
Natural features
The Woodlark Pub
Q3 Do you use the footpaths on and around the site? 43% said Yes 57% said No
VIKING PARK DESIGN AND FEASIBILITY STUDY February 2011
VIKING PARK DESIGN AND FEASIBILITY STUDY February 2011
Viking Park Design & Feasibility Study Consultation Report 39
Q5
Name three things that you would like to see in this part of Whitehill Bordon (please list your answers in order of importance - 1 as highest)
1.
Wildlife / maintain open space
16
2.
Leisure - sports or community
25
3.
Commerical entertainment
14
4.
Retail
8
Q6 Retail
Wildlife
Entertainment
Did you know that part of Viking Park already has planning permission for buildings and has been available for development for a number of years? (fill in one or more of the following) Those who had been involved with the site included: Town Council Had followed it in the press BAAG Professional interest Whitehill & Bordon Town Partnership
Leisure
I've been involved with the site
I already heard about it
VIKING PARK DESIGN AND FEASIBILITY STUDY
VIKING PARK DESIGN AND FEASIBILITY STUDY
February 2011
February 2011
40 Viking Park Design & Feasibility Study Consultation Report
First I've heard of it
Q7
Viking Park plays an important role in the wider Eco-town masterplan. How familiar are you with the Eco-town plans?
Q8
Are there any things on the Viking Park site that you particularly treasure? 18% nothing they valued
None claimed to know nothing about the wider masterplan
60% treasured the trees, paths, natural features and open space I know a bit
Very
Nothing particular
3% valued its potential for development 3% valued its potential for community benefits 3% valued the pub and proximity to town centre Natural features
VIKING PARK DESIGN AND FEASIBILITY STUDY
VIKING PARK DESIGN AND FEASIBILITY STUDY
February 2011
February 2011
Viking Park Design & Feasibility Study Consultation Report 41
Q9
•
• • • • •
•
Currently Viking Park has planning permission for five plots to be used for either employment / leisure or tourism. After advertising for the past five years only two investors have bought a site and the others are still standing empty. Would you prefer to see a change to the planning permission to enable other types of development to come forward? Retain land for leisure or employment - already strain on local amenity and schools - no housing until current deficiency addressed A comment about rents on Viking Park have been set too high The exercise is to circumvent the local plan If MoD don't go this land is only place for Employment and Leisure Housing with its cats and dogs will disturb ecosystem within SINC If 7000 new jobs are to come to Bordon as promised then 3 plots waiting for employment use can't be a problem Council should offer incentives to encourage business to the area
17% would like to see change
Q10 Our initial study suggests that a mix of the following may be more successful on this site and might contribute towards the cost of things like leisure or community facilities. Would any of the following types of development be acceptable to you:
Other
(then number them 1 to 4 in order of suitability 1 as highest)
82% see no for reason change
Health Care 51% for ; 22% ranked suitability as 2; 65% as 4 Housing for Elderly 33% for ; 22% ranked suitability as 2; 65% as 4 General Housing 6% for; and ranked suitability as 4 Other - Where other included: Skills Centre / Retail / leisure for families / something to draw visitors / Hotel / Business start-ups / Railway Station / No decision until MoD leave 30% for; and ranked suitability as 4
VIKING PARK DESIGN AND FEASIBILITY STUDY
VIKING PARK DESIGN AND FEASIBILITY STUDY
February 2011
February 2011
42 Viking Park Design & Feasibility Study Consultation Report
Health Care
General Housing
Housing for Elderly
Viability assumptions and commentary on the design option A financial model has been developed to facilitate the optioneering which is now necessary to assess the impact of different use classes and highway layouts on the financial viability of the site. The model developed takes cost, value, and accommodation inputs and allows optioneering of the key variables to determine the impact on viability. To enable decisions to be made about the make-up of the preferred development solution, a baseline model has been established for the two favoured road options described in Section 3. This baseline includes a number of pre-determined assumptions which are fixed to enable a number of development options to be tested to help guide and shape a viable delivery strategy. The optioneering undertaken so far and the outcomes reported here are by no means exhaustive. Rather, the outputs reported are intended to be used as a guide, allowing East Hampshire District Council and other community stakeholders to understand better the relationship and interplay between different cost and value drivers. Going forward, it is recommended that the model be used in a “live” workshop setting to develop and build upon the options tested, enabling all stakeholders to reach agreement on the way in which Viking Park is redeveloped.
Model Details Residual land value The financial model developed uses Residual Land Value as the output for identifying whether or not a development proposal is financially viable. The residual valuation process takes the value of the development and deducts the costs of the development and the developer’s return for risk and profit. This is expressed below in a simple equation: Value of Development – Cost of Development – Profit = Residual Land Value
Where the residual value is negative, the scheme is not considered viable. Where, compared with comparable land values, the residual value of a site is low due to planning gain and affordable housing requirements, the site is not likely to come forward for development or the landowner may for example withdraw the land from sale and wait for more profitable times or a change in policy/legislation to be made. To make an assessment of residual land value, we have assessed the development options on their own individual merit using current costs and current values, to determine whether sufficient value can be generated to warrant the site being brought forward for development under that particular form. In making this assessment, the financial model has been bespoke to allow key input data to be flexed and a ‘real time’ assessment of residual land value to be made.
Viking Park Design & Feasibility Study Consultation Report 43
Flexibilities The following are the key variables within which the model will allow optioneering to bring the scheme to a deliverable position: •
Use class
•
Tenure split (affordable rent / shared ownership / private sale / live work)
•
Product type (unit type, mix / sizes)
•
Plot coverage (what development plots are incorporated into the development)
•
Density
•
Non-residential uses (commercial and community uses)
•
HCA investment (NAHP or wider investment)
•
Sustainability performance / solution (Code level 3-6, energy solution)
•
Extent of wider estate works
•
Programme (development period / construction and sale rates)
The existing consented development area is delineated by the yellow areas in the site plans below.
Highway Option 1
Baseline The baseline position assesses the two favoured road options as described in Section 3. In each, it is assumed that the MOD does not vacate, therefore only the existing consented site area is considered appropriate for development purposes. This approach will ensure that a development solution on the existing site can be implemented now, without encumbering the scope to extend the development further should the MOD’s departure be confirmed.
44 Viking Park Design & Feasibility Study Consultation Report
Highway Option 3
Each of the baseline highway options has been tested to determine the development viability assuming a ‘Retail led mixed use development’ and a ‘Housing led mixed use development’.
•
A gross residential build rate of £900m² (£83.61 sqft) and £850m2 (£78.96 sqft) is used for shared ownership and social rent respectively.
Set out below for these respective options are the key assumptions which underpin the assessment of viability:
•
A gross build rate of £750m² (£69.67 sqft) has been used for provision of a Supermarket.
•
A gross build rate of £515m² (£47.84 sqft) has been used for provision of a retail shed.
•
A gross build rate of £545m² (£50.63 sqft) has been used for provision of a restaurant.
•
An infrastructure allowance of 18% has been included to cover externals and site works associated with residential development and 30% for retail.
•
Preliminaries are included at 14% of build cost.
•
Fees are at 5% of build cost.
•
Profit on build is assumed to be 7%.
•
A development contingency of 5% is included.
•
A lump sum of £150,000 is included for legal costs.
•
A provisional sum of £100,000 is included for work to the SINC.
•
Build Cost • A build cost uplift is included to deliver Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4.
The brief was for 20 % developers profit but the assumptions have been revisited to 15% based on our view of the current market and the appetite for risk. An additional sales and marketing allowance of 3% is included on the private sale element and retail element
•
Finance costs are at 6%
•
•
S106 contributions in addition to the affordable housing are included at £3,500 per private sale dwelling and £125m² for retail uses.
Accommodation • Blended average density of 40 dwellings per hectare •
Retail plot coverage of 38%
•
Affordable housing quantum at 35%, split 70:30 between social rent and shared ownership
• - - - - -
Affordable housing provision to comprise: 15% 1b/2p flats 15% 2b/4p flats 35% 2b/4p houses 25% 3b/5p houses 10% 4b/6p houses
•
Private housing provision is optimised based on advice provided by King Sturge.
•
Circulation of 20% net:gross only applied to flats.
•
All affordable properties assumed to be built to minimum Design and Quality Standards.
A gross residential build rate of £950m² (£88.25 sqft) is used for new build private.
Viking Park Design & Feasibility Study Consultation Report 45
Income • Advice has been provided by King Sturge on the open market value of £212sqft average for private sales and retail elements at £20sqft with a yield of 5% for a supermarket and £15sqft and a yield of 6% for retail. •
•
•
The affordable housing values are calculated based on a percentage of private sale value. No advice has been sought from a Registered Provider and it is recommended this is undertaken at the next stage.
Outcomes The key output measure for determining development viability in this financial model is residual land value. The table right provides detail of the financial position arising from the modelling of the development options being considered: Social Rent
Shared Total Ownership Units
Retail m2
Expenditure
Residual Land Value
Option 1 Road Nth - 75 Housing Led
30
12
117
0
£17,679,583
-£135,771
The value for the social rent properties is included at 30% of private sale and the shared ownership is included at average 60% of private sale.
Option 3 Existing Road - Housing Led
82
36
14
132
0
£19,489,762
-£352,244
Option 1 Road Nth - 54 Retail Led
23
12
89
2,751
£19,420,871
£5,493,908
In light of recent public spending cuts, no public subsidy e.g. HCA grant has not been included.
Option 3 Existing Road - Retail Led
26
12
101
2,751
£22,117,438
£6,458,33
Programme • The development is undertaken as a continuous phase. •
Residential construction at one dwelling per week and retail construction at 100m² per week.
•
Sales rate of three dwellings per month with post completion sales commencing after four months.
Option
Private
63
Table 1: Viability position of development options based on individual merit.
Landowner position In considering whether there is sufficient value in the development options being considered to warrant the landowner bringing the site forward for development we have sought confirmation of Viking Properties existing position. From the land owners point of view, the 1st phase must be viable as a stand alone development, if the detailed master plan for the Viking Park site is to be realised. We are advised by the landowner that the sales receipt relating to the two plots already developed and sold on Viking Park total £1,352,500. Earl Estates’ has also advised us of their costs incurred to date.
46 Viking Park Design & Feasibility Study Consultation Report
Applying the landowner’s current position to our development proposals gives us an indication of the viability of each scenario: Whilst the retail led development options assessed are viable on their own merit, based on the set of assumptions set out above, the housing led options return a negative residual value. The residual value is not sufficient to meet the landowner’s expectations on site value. This position is not insurmountable and a positive value could be created by flexing one or more of the standard assumptions. However, in order to try and improve this position further EC Harris has reviewed a number of additional options for the housing led scheme, which are explained below:
Options A). Public Subsidy The provision of affordable housing is based on no public subsidy. This means the cost of providing the affordable housing is being cross subsidised by income generated by the private sale properties. Should public subsidy become available this would support the delivery of the affordable housing at the Council’s policy levels. Based on the total number of affordable homes delivered in the baseline housing led scenario, the blended level of grant across the social rent and shared ownership properties is:
Option 1 Road Nth Housing Led
Option 3 Existing Road - Housing Led
No. Affordable Units
42
50
Blended Grant per Unit
£132,464
£118,120
B). Value Sensitivity The baseline position is based on current day values. In order for the baseline position to become viable a value uplift as indicated below would be required across all income streams:
Value uplift required to facilitate viability
Option 1 Road Nth Housing Led
Option 3 Existing Road - Housing Led
32.5%
30.5%
C). Cost Sensitivity The baseline position is based on current day costs. In order for the baseline position to become viable a cost reduction as indicated below would be required across all expenditure streams: Option 1 Road Nth Housing Led Construction value decrease -32.5% required facilitate viability
Option 3 Existing Road - Housing Led -30%
Viking Park Design & Feasibility Study Consultation Report 47
D). Affordable Housing Tenure Split Changing the tenure of the affordable housing from 70:30 rent/ shared ownership in the event no public subsidy is forthcoming would generate greater affordable housing revenues, allowing the shared ownership provision to cross subsidise the social rent provision. Option 1 Road Nth Housing Led
Option 3 Existing Road - Housing Led
Quantum of Affordable Housing
35%
35%
Rent / Shared Ownership
0:100 split
10:90 split
Value Created
£1,305,583
£1,625,884
E). Quantum of Affordable Housing Reducing the quantum of affordable in the event no public subsidy is forthcoming would generate higher private sale revenue that can be used to cross subsidise the affordable housing. Option 1 Road Nth Housing Led
Option 3 Existing Road - Housing Led
Quantum of Affordable Housing
10%
10%
Rent / Shared Ownership
70:30 split
70:30 split
Value Created
£2,425,656
£2,820,819
48 Viking Park Design & Feasibility Study Consultation Report
F). Blending Affordable Housing Quantum and Tenure Split to Optimise Provision With no public subsidy available, the affordable housing can be optimised to improve overall scheme viability and actual affordable housing delivery. An example of the level of affordable housing delivery that could be achievable is: Option 1 Road Nth Housing Led
Option 3 Existing Road - Housing Led
Quantum of Affordable Housing
15%
15%
Rent / Shared Ownership
20:80 split
20:80 split
Value Created
£2,433,698
£2,914,026
G). Increase the Housing Density Promoting a more intensive development will increase the amount of housing on site, generating greater income and affordable housing provision: Option 1 Road Nth Housing Led
Option 3 Existing Road - Housing Led
Development Density (DPH)
50
50
Quantum of Affordable Housing
15%
15%
Rent / Shared Ownership
20:80 split
20:80 split
Value Created
£2,921,668
£3,361,843
Delivery summary
Exclusions
Option 1 Road Nth - Housing Led
Excluded from the scheme balance in all of these options are:
Balance
Tenure Split No Private
%
Social Rented
%
Shared Ownership
%
% Affordable Housing Delivered
Baseline
-£135,771
75
64
30
25
12
10
35
Option A
£5,689,518
75
64
30
25
12
10
35
Option B
£5,701,738
75
64
30
25
12
10
35
Option C
£5,745,864
75
64
30
25
12
10
35
Option D
£1,169,812
75
64
0
0
43
36
36
Option E
£2,289,885
109
94
7
6
0
0
6
Option F
£2,297,927
100
88
0
0
14
12
12
Option G
£2,785,897
126
86
2
1
18
12
13
•
Any further costs due by the landowner in relation to completing works associated with the implemented consent.
•
In relation to Highway Option 1, the road corridor is maintained free of development but the actual cost of providing the road is not included.
•
No community contribution is provided other than the allowance for Section 106 contributions.
•
Some options with very low affordable housing provision may be unacceptable to policy.
Summary Option 3 Existing Road - Housing Led Balance
Tenure Split No Private
%
Social Rented
%
Shared Ownership
%
% Affordable Housing Delivered
Baseline
-£352,244
82
62
36
27
14
11
38
Option A
£5,905,991
82
62
36
27
14
11
38
Option B
£5,944,378
82
62
36
27
14
11
38
Option C
£5,952,602
82
62
36
27
14
11
38
Option D
£1,273,640
82
61
0
0
52
39
38
Option E
£2,468,575
125
92.5
10
7.5
0
0
7.5
Option F
£2,561,782
121
88
3
2
14
10
12
Option G
£3,009,599
142
85.5
3
2
21
12.5
14.5
The options described above are not intended to suggest a particular course of action. Instead it is intended to demonstrate how; by flexing the variables contained within the model it is possible to create viability. A combination of alterations to the affordable housing provision as evidenced in Option G, demonstrates that a housing led scheme can be optimised to deliver development at Viking Park. Cross subsidy from private sale housing makes it possible to deliver new affordable housing that affords tenure choice for residents and an improved standard of living by virtue of the improved housing conditions and development environment.
Viking Park Design & Feasibility Study Consultation Report 49
The quantum of affordable housing delivery is clearly dependent on a number of drivers, most notably residential sale values and the availability of external investment.
housing led or retail led, there is opportunity to secure provision of wider community facilities, subject to being able to create sufficient residual land value to satisfy the landowner.
The extent to which community and stakeholder expectations, in terms of community benefit, employment creation and affordable housing delivery compete against project viability will need to be assessed further by East Hampshire District Council to find an appropriate balance between planning policy and development viability. As the above optioneering demonstrates, regeneration of Viking Park is likely to be financially viable but to arrive at this scenario in the current economic environment, balance and a degree of compromise is likely to be required. Optimising aims and expectations with cross subsidy generation and viability is a fine balance.
In this situation for example, extending a housing led scheme with Highway Option 1 to include residential development on plots 5 and 6 (1.44 Ha) could facilitate the following residual value increase based on the baseline assumptions and Option G as described above:
All the options have demonstrated, by virtue of the site returning a positive residual land value, that all the options under a housing led scheme are viable at Viking Park. Whilst we have not assessed the appropriateness of the landowners land value expectations, we have provided comparison between the residual land value created and what the landowner has informed us of being his expectation of land value. From this analysis it would appear that there is a deficit gap, which might require further negotiation between the landowner Whitehill Bordon Landowner’s Group and Delivery Board in the future. Going forward, there is scope should the MoD confirm its move, to bring the wider site area as indicated in orange in the site plans for development. Should this form of development be either
50 Viking Park Design & Feasibility Study Consultation Report
Residual Site Value
Tenure Split No Private
%
Social Rented
%
Shared Ownership
%
% Affordable Housing Delivered
Option G
£2,785,897
126
86
2
1
18
12
13
Extended Development
£4,269,729
189
89
4
2
27
12
14
Uplift
£1,483,832
63
Extended Development (No Affordable housing)
£5,702,086
221
0
0
Uplift
£2,916,189
95
2 0
0
-2
9 0
0
-18
Although the landowner would require a land payment (the extent of which would need to be agreed) it could be possible to use this additional value to cross subside the provision of community facilities, such as those identified in section 12.
High level road alignment options
#.
#.
c WSP Group plc
Viking Park Design & Feasibility Study Consultation Report 51
www.whitehillbordon.com Produced on behalf of East Hampshire District Council Penns Place Petersfield Hampshire GU31 4EX 01730 234 329