Case Study

Question 1

Tell me about your understanding of the local planning authorities duty in relation to heritage assets.

Answer 1

• Processing applications for listed building consent and considering the impact of development on heritage assets in planning applications.
• Establishing planning policies for protection of the historic environment in their Local Plans
• Designating conservation areas
• Consulting stakeholders such as Historic England and local amenity societies on applications affecting the historic environment
• Maintaining a Historic Environment Record
• Exercising powers of enforcement to address unauthorised works or damage to heritage assets.

Question 2

What is the relevant legislation with reference to listed buildings?

Answer 2

Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990

Question 3

How did you clarify your clients’ priorities at the outset of your instruction and what were these?

Answer 3

My client’s objectives for the studies were clarified at the outset through a decision report which authorised the study, and associated budget. This set the core objectives for the study. These were further honed through briefings with cabinet members and ward councillors who articulated site specific objectives to consider (e.g. we were to consider the delivery of a new footlink on this site) and captured in detail in a Project Initiation Document which I prepared and circulated to identified key project stakeholders and my client.

Question 4

Why had the site been empty and redundant for so long?

Answer 4

The school closed in 2012. It was used temporarily as a decant for a nearby school during 2016-2019, during which time it had suffered the ASB and not been properly managed and secured by the school occupying the premises. When my client regained control of the property it was in a poor state. It is confirmed as surplus to requirement and access to demand by our Education team, reflecting the projected fall in pupil numbers and current vacancies in other secondary schools locally.

Question 5

What was the land ownership?

Answer 5

My client, LBL, was the freeholder. There was a live electrical substation on the site (sublet to the local DNO), which we assumed would need to remain (with potential for it to be relocated to accommodate new development).

Question 6

Who are the key stakeholders?

Answer 6

The key stakeholders of the project included:

• Cabinet Member for
• Ward Councillors
• LBL Education
• LBL VASA & Facilities Management
• LBL Housing Delivery
• LPA
• GLA
• DfE
• Nearby Primary and Secondary Schools
• Historic England
• Victorian Society
• Local Residents
• Local Amenity Groups

Question 7

Tell me about the squatting issue.

Answer 7

I was not involved in this directly, although my understanding from our VASA team was that the site has periodically been broken into and squatted. Following their removal from the site, VASA have appointed guardians to the site to prevent this from happening and to alert to any other trespassers.

Question 8

What are the legal implications of squatters present?

Answer 8

In the UK, the legal implications of squatting can vary depending on the type of property involved. As this was a commercial property, squatting would be treated as a civil trespass.

My client as owner was able to seek and injunction and take legal action to remove the squatters.

If squatters remain in place continuously for 10 years they may acquire rights to the property. In all instances I would advise my client to seek legal advice if they suspect squatters of having entered their property.

Question 9

Explain why your client was able to accommodate a neutral land value?

Answer 9

Linked to the priorities set out in the Borough Plan (2030) and the Housing Strategy, my Client’s priority was around the delivery of housing, and particularly Affordable Housing and social rented homes in the Borough. For the purposes of this study, a neutral land receipt would demonstrate the maximum Affordable Housing that could be delivered through the scheme. However, it was noted that in practice this would be a risky approach and sensitive to any changes or deterioration in the development market.

The expectations around land receipt would be expected to be refined during the delivery strategy stage to account for risk to my client and to minimize the need to renegotiate any deal with a delivery partner.

Question 10

Why did you conclude that full demolition of the site would not meet the policy tests?

Answer 10

I considered that:

• NPPF Paragraph 206 says that ‘substantial harm to or loss of grade II listed buildings should be exceptional’
• Lambeth Local Plan Policy Q20 reiterates this, saying demolition should be ‘exceptional’.
• Para 205 of the NPPF indicates that ‘great weight’ should be given to the asset’s conservation.
• 1990 Act 66(1) – LPA’s should have ‘special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.’

I considered that the grounds to support demolition would not be demonstrable on this site. Whilst it might be argued that the poor condition of the building makes it more sensible to demolish and build over, the NPPF is clear in Para 202 that where there is evidence of deliberate neglect or damage to a heritage asset the deteriorated state of the building should not be taken into account.

Altogether, I was not convinced that there would be sufficient grounds to justify demolition, unless, for example, further structural surveys indicated there were fundamental and irreversible structural issues with the building.

Given the subsidiary nature of the curtilage buildings and the challenges facing the site, I considered there was more space for negotiation on the future of these buildings as part of ongoing design and conversations with the LPA.

Question 11

Was the ‘setting’ of the listed building defined?

Answer 11

The setting of the listed building was tested through initial townscape and visual appraisal work undertaken in VUCITY by our heritage advisor, using a 3D model prepared by our architect. The heritage advisor recommended key locations in the surrounding area where there was existing and distinctive inter-visibility. This was principally in respect of the distinctive roof profile which was one of the main architectural attributes contributing to the special architectural interest of the building and its role in the local townscape.

Question 12

Explain the term curtilage building and the relevance of this.

Answer 12

In this context, a curtilage building is a building within the ‘curtilage’ of a listed building which also forms part of and benefits from the listing protection. Such buildings must date prior to 1948. The definition of what forms a curtilage of a listed building will vary depending on the site.

Question 13

Did you work together with a heritage expert when assessing the likely retention value of buildings on site?

Answer 13

Yes. I appointed heritage advisors to bring their expertise to the project, recognising the likely heritage constraints from the outset. They were able to produce a Statement of Significance which helped to inform the relative value and heritage significance of the buildings on site. This helped to inform the approach in Option 3 described in Issue 1 my presentation and confirmed the curtilage buildings to be of a subservient and less significant value than the main building.

Question 14

What was the planning policy status of the site?

Answer 14

The site was not subject to any site-specific development allocations. In respect of land use, the relevant local policy was Policy S3, which indicated that loss of the education use would be supported if it could be demonstrated that the site was surplus to education needs and redevelopment could help deliver education elsewhere in the borough. This was confirmed by Education and a principle established that any attained land receipt would be reinvested into the school estate.

Question 15

Was there an allocation for development?

Answer 15

No, the site had not been formally allocated or promoted for development.

Question 16

Were you aware of public support for redevelopment?

Answer 16

Ward members were briefed from the outset and had reflected general public concern about the condition and future of the building. At the end of the study, by coincidence the Victorian Society published the building on it’s annual top-ten ‘at risk’ buildings, which brought public attention to its current condition and a prevailing concern that it should be brought back into use as soon as possible.

Question 17

What was the procurement process for the design development team?

Answer 17

The team was competitively procured in accordance with my client’s standing orders and related procurement guidance. For each discipline identified, a shortlist of potential
I prepared procurement briefs for each of the disciplines, and these were issued as part of an invitation to tender. On receipt of tenders, I was responsible for reviewing the tender responses with colleagues who would be leading on other sites which were also being funded by the GLA. Responses were subject to a weighted scoring for quality, cost and social value. Unsuccessful tenderers were offered the opportunity to receive feedback on their submissions.

Question 18

Talk me through the preapplication process?

Answer 18

Instructed design team to prepare documents to submit as part of a package – this included design document and site plans, statement of significance, building conditions survey, TVIA and DSO assessment.

I prepared a document setting out a planning appraisal of the proposal, along with key questions and matters we sought guidance from the LPA on. This pack was submitted to the LPA. A meeting was arranged where design team and I presented to LPA and there was a mutual opportunity to pose questions.

On receipt of the pre-app response I shared with the design team, took comments and undertook my own review and analysis before reporting to my client and formulated advice on the next steps.

Question 19

What key points did you learn from this?

Answer 19

The key points of feedback from the LPA pre-app response included the following:

o Support for the principle of development (loss of education use and redevelopment for residential)
o Support for the principle of curtilage new build development.
o Lack of support for demolition of curtilage buildings without further robust justification
o Acceptance that DSO impacts were within an acceptable range.
o Request cutbacks or reduction in volume to maintain separation and privacy between neighbours.
o Specific design feedback (e.g. acceptable building heights, material treatments, access and public realm).

Question 20

What was the policy compliant target in terms of affordable housing delivery on this site?

Answer 20

A policy compliant scheme for this site, as it was public land, was 50% by Habitable rooms. With a 70/30 split of low cost rent / intermediate tenures (noting my client had a preference for Social Rent over Affordable Rent).

Question 21

Talk me through your approach to establishing GDV.

Answer 21

In order to establish the GDV of the schemes, I undertook research to take an appropriate view on local residential values. I looked for appropriate comparable schemes, including recent new build development. I used Molior as a source. I also looked at secondhand sales in other nearby converted institutional buildings, including one in very close proximity to the site. This enabled me to take a view on residential values on a per square foot basis, concluding £750 psqft as an appropriate blended rate to apply across the development.

Affordable values were determined as an approximate % of the OM values (70% for SO, 30% for SR).

OM values would be determined sale-by-sale at sale stage, Affordable values determined by offers received by RPs.

Question 22

How did you deal with the uncertainties of heritage building conversion within your development appraisal?

Answer 22

I took advice from heritage experts around the significance of the building, which helped inform what would be possible in terms of design and conversion works.

I instructed a QS to prepare a cost plan which would take account of the scheme specifics, including the costs of the conversion and restoration of the main building. I considered that this would be more reliable than using other sources, such as BCIS.

Question 23

Why has safe access for structural review not being possible at that point?

Answer 23

The building is in an extremely poor state of disrepair following an extended period of vacancy where it has suffered from squatting, vandalism and antisocial behaviour. Metal thieves have stripped lead flashing which has also led to failures in the roof and guttering, leading to significant water ingress through out the building. Safe access to the roof has not therefore been possible (and drone surveys were undertaken as an intermediary step).

Question 24

What sensitivity analysis did you undertake?

Answer 24

I have described how I tested alternative scenarios when I determined that the schemes and central assumptions around AH did not return positive RLV. This included assumed adjustments to Net-to-Gross.

Question 25

Where would you find relevant guidance and policy on FVA.

Answer 25

Appropriate guidance and policy for FVA would include:

• RICS Professional Standard – Valuation of Development Property (October 2019 – 1st Edition)
• RICS Professional Standard – Financial Viability in Planning: conduct and reporting (October 2019)
• International Valuation Standards (January 2022)

Together these provide an effective, regulatable framework for the delivery of valuation services to clients.

Question 26

Tell me about the potential for obtaining the GLA Affordable Homes Programme grant?

Answer 26

At the time of the study, it was understood that the GLA were taking a flexible approach towards its Grant programme, reflecting changes in the market. I worked on a reasonable assumption that:
- GLA would fund provided minimum of 20% AH secured.
- Would fund the AH delivered above 20%
- £170k per SR / £70k per SO

Applied a separate line in appraisals – issued half at the start of construction and half at completion. An alternative approach would be to blend the grant into the affordable housing rates.

Question 27

How is the advice to your client recorded and delivered?

Answer 27

This was delivered through internal briefings, both verbal and written, to my managers, to members and our internal Housing Delivery Board, with a recommendation for next steps. The study findings were also recorded in a RIBA Stage 1 report prepared by our architect with input from the technical team and myself as development manager.

Question 28

How was your advice used by the local authority?

Answer 28

My client, LBL, has now:

• Instructed commercial advisors to inform the development of a delivery strategy, which will likely focus on partnership models (e.g. conditional land sale, or DA by way of procurement.
• Is also considering works to temporarily secure the building, as a result of my recommendations on observing the poor and deteriorating condition of the building and recent negative press.

Question 29

What would you do differently next time? How did you act ethically? What were your key achievements?

Answer 29

Next time, I would:
- Encourage our architect to work with simpler volumetric designs to work through early iterations more swiftly.
- Ensure all the design team had appropriate skillset and resource appropriate to the site and task at hand.

I consider my achievements to be:
- Providing reasoned advice on the site’s capacity to deliver new homes.
- Securing agreement for the principle of substantial new build development around the listed building.
- Highlighting the risk and liability that this asset presented to my client and the urgency around bringing it back into use.

Question 30

Explain the outcome of your residual valuation?

Answer 30

The residual valuation in my Case Study is the baseline scheme of Option A. It is based on:

• Architect’s area schedules.
• GDV based on open market values determined by comparable evidence and high level discounts for affordable tenures.
• QS build costs on a psqft rate.
• Reasonable assumptions around transaction costs, legal, marketing, professional fees etc.
• Developer profit assumptions.
• the architects area schedules for

It shows that the scheme returns a negative land value.

Question 31

Tell me about your understanding of financial viability assessment.

Answer 31

A FVA determines the ability of a development scheme to deliver a return on investment. Similar inputs and model to a RLV, but the output is profitability, which is typically profit on GDV or GDC.

Question 32

Explain the overall advice to your client.

Answer 32

I advised my client:
- Site faced significant challenges and constraints (build costs, poor state of repair, listed building constraint, neighbour proximity)
- That my RLVs indicated unlikely to support significant (or any) Affordable Housing
- The building presented an ongoing risk and liability to the council.
- Therefore advisable to proceed on the basis that the priority was bringing the site to market and back into use (as opposed to waiting until market conditions improved and AH delivery was improved).