Professional FINANCIAL VIABILITY


IN PLANNING Robert Fourt BSc MSc MRICS


Robert Fourt is a Partner of Gerald Eve and Head of Development with a particular interest in the financial viability of development. He is a member of the Working Party that produced the RICS Guidance Note into Financial Viability in Planning and was also a member of the viability working group that fed into the Local Housing Delivery Group advice for Viability Testing Local Plans which was chaired by Sir John Harman.


Robert has provided advice on a variety of commercial property throughout England. He has specialised in development consultancy and finance including project co-ordination, strategic planning, financial and risk analysis, feasibility studies, funding and bringing


forward a wide range of schemes on behalf of public, private and corporate clients. Since 2007 Robert has also been partner responsible for finance and investment research in Gerald Eve. He is an experienced expert witness who has provided evidence upon valuation, financial, viability, and development matters at various public inquiries, arbitrations, Lands Tribunal and in the High Court. In addition Robert provides advice on financial viability in respect of affordable housing provision and planning obligations within schemes. rfourt@geraldeve.com


Robert provides an informative summary of 2 documents recently published on the crucially important subject of sustainable development, viability and deliverability. “Although their approaches to arriving at land value differ, both publications provide an enormous amount of helpful guidance. Indeed, I hope my focus in this article on looking at the land value element of both does not detract from areas which provide a fundamental framework for the first time in this important area.”


In the Ministerial foreword to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) of March 2012, Greg Clark, on behalf of the coalition Government, stated:


“…. sustainable development is about positive growth … development that is sustainable should go ahead, without delay – a presumption in favour of sustainable development that is the basis for every plan, and every decision.”


14


In significantly reducing national policy, by either revoking or replacing a raft of previous documents, the Government has provided a framework for plan preparation and material considerations in making planning decisions. As a by-product, it has also encouraged professional bodies and other stakeholder groups to come forward with guidance to assist in the implementation of the NPPF in both plan making and decision taking through development management.


This has already resulted in two significant and complementary publications that provide advice and guidance with a particular focus on ensuring viability and resultant deliverability (see paragraph 173 NPPF below):


(i) Financial Viability in Planning (a RICS Guidance Note, Exposure draft May 2012); and


(ii) Viability Testing Local Plans (Advice for planning practitioners, June 2012) – Local Housing Delivery Group (LHDG).


Both have emerged as a result of the considerable debate around the practice of assessing scheme specific and area-wide viability testing. The RICS GN provides a comprehensive and technical approach for both users and practitioners involved in financial viability in planning. It has a particular focus on scheme specific aspects of viability but, importantly, also addresses and sets out many of the principles that are required for area-wide viability assessments. The LHDG advice outlines a “collective view” of the importance of viability and deliverability as part of the balance in developing local plans. The focus here is on residential development and the process involved in undertaking area-wide viability assessments. Each publication makes reference to Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) viability testing which of course falls under the area-wide category of assessments. Also, they recognise that financial viability is only part of the overall planning assessment, and its importance will vary dependent upon the particular circumstance, in coming to a decision.


THE TERRIER - Summer 2012


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68