Affordable housing appeal decided

In protracted affordable housing negotiations, 17% affordable housing with overage had been agreed between Chorley Council and Taylor Wimpey in respect of a significant housing development. No education contribution was sought or required at that stage. Based on new expert advice from the same experts as in Warburton Lane, and before signing the s.106 agreement, Taylor Wimpey contended that no affordable housing was viable. The Council refused permission based on that sole issue concluding that there was no justification for the volte-face. On its appeal, Taylor Wimpey contended that just 5% was viable and that the Council’s approach was misconceived in principle and fact – and was based on a misunderstanding and misapplication of the NPPG. The Council, based on its own expert advice, refused to budge bolstered by the decision in Warburton Lane. The stage was set for fundamental issues as to BLV, how to address abnormals and the approach to standardized (BCIS) costs to be considered at inquiry. However, in the run up to the inquiry, TW dropped its viability case entirely for reasons which, according to the inspector, were largely unexplained. It declined to provide the detailed material underpinning its assessment and, by agreeing to policy compliant affordable housing having its expert case tested and its approach to the NPPG, BLV, abnormals and costs challenged. 30% affordable housing was thus required. In the delay caused by the appeal, a new education contribution of nearly £500,000 was sought. David Forsdick QC acted for the Council and for Trafford Council in the Warburton Lane case.