AreaWideViabilityAug12

Assessing area-wide viability

Assessing the viability and deliverability of predicted housing
growth based on Babergh District Council Draft Core Strategy.

Report Prepared for:

Babergh District Council – Planning Department

August 2012

Private & Confidential

Lambert Smith Hampton

Viability Statement – Draft

Assessing the viability and deliverability of predicted housing growth based on
Babergh District Council Draft Core Strategy.

August 2012.

Prepared for:

Babergh District Council

Written by and on behalf of Lambert Smith Hampton:

Edward Morgan, Associate Director, MRTPI – Planning & Development Consultancy

Confirmed by:
James Brierley, Director, MA (Oxon) MRICS – Planning & Development Consultancy

Notice

This report has been produced by Lambert Smith Hampton (LSH) for Babergh District Council (BDC) for the
specific purpose of assessing viability with regards to development in Babergh District based on the proposed
policies in the draft Core Strategy. The contents of this report are confidential to BDC and it together with any
further information supplied shall not be copied, reproduced or distributed to any third parties without prior
consent from LSH. The information contained is believed to be correct as at May 2012 but LSH give notice that:
a) All statements contained within this report are made without acceptance of any liability in negligence or
otherwise by LSH.
b) None of the statements contained in this report are to be relied upon as statements or representations of fact
or warranty whatsoever, without LSH permission.
c) LSH accepts no liability, in respect of intending lenders or otherwise providing or raising finance to which this
report may be referred to.
d) Any estimates of value or similar, other than specifically referred to otherwise, are subject to and for the
purposes of discussion and are there only draft and excluded from the provisions of the RICS Valuation
Manual 7
th
Edition (amended).

Table of Contents
1. Executive Summary 4

2. Introduction 5
The Instruction 5
Context 6

3. Methodology 9
Adopted Appraisal Model 12

4. Model Assumptions 14
Scheme Typologies 14
Dwelling Mix 15
Dwelling Sizes 16
Sales Values 17
Market Value Bands 19
Threshold Land Values 20
Price Inflation/Construction Cost Inflation 2 2
Construction Cost 23
Other Costs 25
Affordable Housing 26
S106 Contributions 26

5. Area Wide Viability Model Outputs 28

6. Sensitivity Testing 30

7. Conclusion 34

Figures:
Figure 1 : Map of Babergh District

Tables:
Table 1: Typologies and Assumptions
Table 2: Proposed Mix of Flats and Houses as agreed with BDC
Table 3: Higher Density Flatted Area
Table 4: Residential Unit Sizes used in the assessment
Table 5: Sales Values of New Build Housing by Ward across Babergh (£psf)
Table 6: Typologies and Value Bands
Table 7: Rates of Inflation
Table 8: BCIS Build Costs
Table 9: Level of Achievable Affordable Housing by Typology
Table 10: Sales Values at Base Output with Affordable Housing at 35%
Table 11: Rural Affordable Housing Percentage
Table 12: Increase in Build Costs
Table 13: Increase S106 by £1000
Table 14: Decrease S106 by £1000
Table 15: Reduce Sales Values by 5%
Table 16: Increase Sales Values by 5%
Table 17: Changes in Dwelling Mix

1. Executive Summary

1.1 Lambert Smith Hampton (LSH) are instructed by Babergh District Council (BDC) to review the
reasonableness of the proposed affordable housing policy, taking account of the housing
proposals and associated infrastructure to be put forward for the Babergh Draft Core Strategy.

1.2 A range of different development typologies were agreed with BDC for likely sites in the
Babergh District and using data provided and research undertaken, LSH used the HCA Area
Wide Viability Model (AWVM) in order to ascertain the viability and deliverability of predicted
housing growth. This is then intended to inform the deliverability, or otherwise, of 35%
affordable units across the District and to provide supporting evidence for the Council at the
Core Strategy Examination.

1.3 LSH undertook extensive research into residential transactions gathered from Land Registry
and through speaking with Agents and Developers. This data was used to establish the
overall value of completed development across the study area. Assumed costs reflect BCIS
data and/or have been agreed with the Homes and Communities (HCA) and Babergh District
Council.

1.4 Benchmarks used to assess the viability appraisal were “Profit on Cost” and “Market Land
Value”, which have, through sensitivity analysis, been robustly tested.

1.5 The results of the appraisal show that Babergh can achieve an overall level of 35% affordable
housing on an area-wide basis. There is some variability however, where some development
typologies can achieve greater than this amount and some will not, most notably the small
rural brownfield sites (1 – 3 units), which have a more limited ability to deliver affordable
housing.

1.6 Research and testing could be undertaken on a more site specific basis where results are
more firm, such as when a planning application is submitted, however the affordable housing
policy proposed in the Draft Core Strategy would, on balance, remain reasonable based on
the assumptions proposed and agreed with Babergh District Council and the HCA in this
report. These assumptions are also robust and supported by evidence gathered and supplied
by LSH, HCA and BDC.

2. Introduction

The Instruction
2.1 Lambert Smith Hampton (LSH) was instructed by Babergh District Council (BDC) to provide
an updated assessment of the viability of affordable housing policy based on an area wide
viability assessment of the Local Authority of Babergh (“the Subject Area”); reflecting the
predicted housing growth to be proposed in the Draft Core Strategy (October 2011); LSH
have been asked to comment on the viability of the proposed affordable housing policy taking
account of the Core Strategy as a whole.

2.2 BDC’s Draft Core Strategy contains various policies which include the anticipated distribution
of growth, in terms of housing and employment, throughout the District; the level of affordable
housing which BDC expects developers to incorporate into residential development schemes,
and the achievement of Building for Life Standards including 10% carbon emissions from
renewable or low carbon sources.

2.3 LSH undertook an area wide assessment of viability based on comparable data and the
current BDC draft core Strategy proposals to determine whether, on balance, the proposed
affordable housing policy is reasonable, given the other Draft Core Strategy policies.

2.4 The objectives of this report and model review exercise were:

To review previous assumptions and inputs to the AWVM for BDC and
recommend any refinements or changes.
Consider reasonable assumptions around the choice of typologies, selection of
existing land use types, the housing sub-markets and proposed dwelling types
and sizes.
Establish reasonable local market land value allowing the consideration of
reasonable threshold values to assess viability (in accordance with RICS
Guidance).
Establish local housing market conditions, private residential property prices,
development costs and affordable home income and revenue.

2.5 The outputs are to inform the deliverability of affordable housing target of 35% of residential
units across the Babergh District and are to be used to support the Core Strategy examination
in relation to the viability and deliverability of proposed housing growth within the District as a
whole.

2.6 This report must not be used by any other person other than BDC or Mid Suffolk District
Council without LSH’s express permission. In any event, LSH accepts no liability for any
costs, liabilities or losses as a result of the use of, or reliance upon, the contents of this report
by any other person other than BDC for planning purposes.

2.7 The advice provided herein must only be regarded as an indication of achieving policy targets,
on the basis that all assumptions are satisfied. The advice is provided in the context of a
District-Wide appraisal and cannot be considered to represent a valuation of any particular
land interests in accordance with the RICS Valuation Standards (the Red Book) published by
the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, and should not be regarded as such.

Context
2.8 Babergh is a district situated in Suffolk. The population is in the region of 87, 700 people and
covers an area of approximately 230 square miles.

2.9 It is a predominantly rural area with two Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, one at Dedham
Vale and the other being Suffolk Coastal & Heaths (the Shotley Peninsula). The area also
contains what is termed ‘Constable Country’ which includes the villages of Long Melford,
Lavenham, Kersey, East Bergholt, Capel St. Mary, Stratford St. Mary, Bentley, Dedham,
Langham, Lawford and Flatford, and is very popular with visitors.

2.10 The two major towns in Babergh are Sudbury and Hadleigh. Sudbury is the largest with a
population reported in the 2001 census as being circa 12,000 people.

2.11 Sudbury is situated about 13 miles north west of Colchester. The local economy revolves
around manufacturing, retail, education, business services and health. Major nearby roads
include the A134 and A131, with Stansted Airport about 31.5 miles to the southwest of the
town. Train services run into London Liverpool Street.

2.12 Hadleigh is an ancient market town and is situated between Ipswich and Sudbury.

2.13 Recent residential development has included Bakers Mill at Sudbury by Barratt Homes;
Cromwell Fields at Great Waldingfield by Bellway; The Priory at Sudbury by Charles Church
and Stour Croft at Great Cornard by Persimmon.

Fig 1. Map of Babergh District

2.14 BDC had previously undertaken an outline assessment on viability and deliverability of their
Core Strategy polices, however, given the period of time which had passed since this review,
BDC required an update to ensure that their approach remained sound.

2.15 At the outset, BDC provided some development assumptions that had been made and agreed
in discussion with the HCA. LSH were required to robustly test this data and provide further
market analysis to corroborate or amend policy aspirations for S106 contributions per
residential unit and affordable housing quantums to be sought on a District wide basis.

2.15 The following information was initially provided to LSH by BDC/HCA:

• HCA Area Wide Viability Model – populated with draft typologies
• Local Planning Authority Data from the Babergh SHLAA including Housing figures, sample
sites (including those identified within the Draft Core Strategy)
• Development Assumptions including affordable housing capitalisations, an assumed
dwelling mix for the District based on past completion rates,
• Assumed dwelling sizes and an initial portfolio of allocated sites which were considered to
have some potential for fulfilling Core Strategy objectives.

2.16 Following a meeting with BDC on 19
th
April 2012, assumptions were agreed for the inputting
of data into the Model.

3. Methodology

3.1 This section of the report sets out the basis upon which the viability assessment has been
produced.

3.2 LSH understand that development viability is capable of being regarded as a material
consideration in determining the extent of affordable housing to be secured through S106
agreements in planning applications. LSH are aware that the Homes and Communities
Agency (HCA) and the recently published National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
provide guidance towards “Financial Viability in Planning”.

3.3 The NPPF at paragraph 173 states, ‘Pursuing sustainable development requires careful
attention to viability and costs in plan-making and decision-taking. Plans should be
deliverable. Therefore, the sites and the scale of development identified in the plan should not
be subject to such a scale of obligations and policy burdens that their ability to be developed
viably is threatened. To ensure viability, the costs of any requirements likely to be applied to
development, such as requirements for affordable housing, standards, infrastructure
contributions or other requirements should, when taking account of the normal cost of
development and mitigation, provide competitive returns to a willing land owner and willing
developer to enable the development to be deliverable’.

3.4 Currently further confirmed guidance is awaited from Central Government as to the
interpretation to the above statement and the assessment of development viability and
deliverability on a district wide basis.

3.5 The RICS is understood to be publishing a guidance note imminently which it consulted upon
in 2011. This seeks to provide all those involved in financial viability in planning and related
matters with a definitive and objective methodology framework and a set of principles that can
be applied for both plan making and development management. An exposure-draft of the
Guidance was published in April 2012. The RICS are seeking to provide:

“An objective financial viability test of the ability of a development project to meet its costs
including the cost of planning obligations, whilst ensuring an appropriate site value for the
landowner and a market risk adjusted return to the developer in delivering that project.”
1

3.6 The Draft RICS guidance note identifies that the residual appraisal methodology for financial
viability testing should normally be used to assess viability. Residual appraisal methodology
allows either the level of return or site value to be an input and the consequential output
(either a residual site value or return respectively) to be compared to a benchmark in order to
assess the impact of planning obligations or policy implications on viability. LSH are aware
that the RICS propose that where viability is being used to test and inform planning policy it
will be necessary to substitute “a development project” and “project” into the wider context to
look at viability over a number of site types that may make up an area’s assumptions over
future development / housing growth.

3.7 Site Value either as an input into a scheme specific appraisal or as a benchmark is defined in
the guidance note as follows:-

“Site Value should equate to the Market Value
2
subject to the following assumption: that the
value has regard to development plan policies and all other material planning considerations
and disregards that which is contrary to the development plan.”
3

3.8 Furthermore, the guidance note provides advice to members of the RICS on aspects of
professional practice. Where procedures are recommended for specific professional tasks,
these are intended to embody ‘best practice’, that is, procedures which in the opinion of the
RICS meet a high standard of professional competence. In the opinion of the RICS, a
member conforming to the practices recommended in this guidance note should have at least
a partial defence to an allegation of negligence by virtue of having followed those practices.
LSH have taken careful consideration of this exposure guidance note in assessing the
proposed district wide analysis.

3.9 In addition to the above Draft RICS Guidance, Viability Testing Local Plans – Advice for
planning practitioners Local Housing Delivery Group (Chaired by Sir John Harman) was
recently published at the end of June 2012.

1
RICS exposure guidance note April 2012.
2
The estimated amount for which an asset or liability should exchange on the valuation date between a willing buyer and a willing seller in
an arm’s-length transaction after properly marketing and where the parties had each acted knowledgeably, prudently and without
compulsion
.

3.10 In respect of establishing Threshold Land Values there is recognition in that report of the need
to comply to NPPF requirements of ‘competitive returns’ and it notes that “Consideration of an
appropriate Threshold Land Value needs to take account of the fact that future plan policy
requirements will have an impact on land values and landowner expectations. Therefore,
using a market value approach as the starting point carries the risk of building-in assumptions
of current policy costs rather than helping to inform the potential for future policy. Reference
to market values can still provide a useful ‘sense check’ on the threshold values that are being
used in the model (making use of cost-effective sources of local information), but it is not
recommended that these are used as the basis for the input to a model. We recommend that
the Threshold Land Value is based on a premium over current use values and credible
alternative use values”

3.11 The precise figure that should be used as an appropriate premium above current use value
should be determined locally. But it is important that there is evidence that it represents a
sufficient premium to persuade landowners to sell. This is in line with the reference in the
NPPF to take account of a “competitive return” to a willing land owner, as this will be one that
would lead to a market transaction, discounting abnormal purchases or cases where
landowners are selling under distressed circumstances – Furthermore, if local market
evidence is that minimum price provisions are substantially in excess of the initial benchmark
assumptions, then the plan will be at significant risk unless Threshold Land Values are placed
at a higher level, reflecting that market evidence.”

3.12 Following RICS guidance(4) and Guidance in the Harman Report, LSH has assessed viability
using a Residual Land Value (RLV) and compared it to a reasonable local land value
benchmark which LSH assess as providing a competitive return for a developer.

3.13 The approach taken has been to seek to establish a range of market values for different site
typologies and has considered also existing use values for typologies and the level of
inducement to treat. Considering the guidance provided by Harman to adopt a robust and
precautionary approach to value which reflects the fact that future plan policy requirements
will have an impact on land values and landowner expectations, LSH have set robust
assumptions at the lower end of market value assumptions.
This approach has been a
standard procedure used to assess the adequacy of the financial return from a scheme
having regard to the projected value of the completed development and the estimated costs

3
RICS emerging Guidance 2012.

involved. Furthermore this approach reflects the method adopted by the HCA to assess the
viability of schemes.

Adopted appraisal model

3.14 In assessing the potential viability of the delivery of the Core Strategy over time, BDC have
adopted the use of the Homes and Communities Agency’s (HCA) Area Wide Viability Model
(AWVM) which was previously used to assess BDC’s policies.

3.15 The purpose of the HCA AWVM Model is to provide an indication as to whether residential
development, on balance, will be viable and deliverable on agreed assumptions on an area-
wide basis.
3.16 The HCA’s Area Wide Viability Model is a strategic tool designed to assist forward investment
planning in the context of housing supply and in particular to consider the strategic capacity to
deliver affordable housing on mixed tenure – private sale and affordable – residential sites. As
such it can test at a high level the achievability of planning policy and development
management requirements on an area wide policy basis. It does this by:

• Analysing the differences between selected development typologies in different localities
and sub markets
• Assessing the deliverability of potential planning obligations across a local area by
considering their impact on development viability across a range of development site
typologies
• Allowing consideration of the mix of planning obligations – for example for a given level of
Community Infrastructure Levy or S106 contributions – how much affordable housing can
be viably delivered on a nil grant basis?
• The impact of a number of assumptions including a land value benchmark (threshold) –
either by comparable market or existing use value plus a percentage approaches.

3.17 This model helps to inform stakeholders in terms of policy formulation in terms of S106,
affordable housing, planning infrastructure delivery and CIL charging schedules.

3.18 LSH were provided with initial assumptions and the HCA Area Wide Viability Model (AWVM)
by BDC/HCA.

3.19 The HCA AWVM consists of various input areas across the District as follows:

• Site Details
• Typologies and Land Values
• Sales Values and Affordable Housing Capital Values
• Costs and Timings
• Results

3.20 LSH ‘sense checked’ these initial assumptions and this was followed up by a meeting with
BDC where further assumptions were agreed for inputting into the Model. The agreed
assumptions include:

• Scheme Typologies
• Dwelling Mix
• Dwelling Sizes
• Sales Values
• Market Value Bands
• Threshold Land Value
• Inflation
• Build Costs.
• Other cost data includes legal fees, developers profit, development finance,
marketing fees, professional fees, design & susta inability, site acquisition and
stamp duty.
• S.106 payments per unit
• Affordable Housing percentage

3.21 This report follows the above headings and elaborates on LSH assumptions and how they are
derived.

4. Model Assumptions

4.1 This section sets out the assumptions and justification used in the HCA AWVM.

Scheme typologies
4.2 The Model assumptions for Typologies are set on overall estimated land take within different
localities and types of development land. The Model therefore provides five overall types of
development land which have differing development assumptions with regard to dwelling mix,
gross to net land ratios, expected level of existing services and access and likely threshold
land values.

4.3 These were derived from the Babergh Local Development Framework These five typologies
were agreed with the Council to provide the basis for this Viability Assessment. Based on this
information, typologies were agreed with BDC and are set out in the table below:

4.4 Table 1: Typologies and assumptions
Typology Use Units
Gross
Quantity of
Development
Land (ha)
Gross to Net
Ratio
Density of
Dwellings per
hectare
Rural Infill, <1 ha Brownfield 1 - 3 24.35 90% 29.8 Rural Greenfield >1ha Greenfield >3 29.7 70% 36.2

Urban Infill Brownfield >1ha 22.1 90% 49.1

Urban Infill Greenfield >1ha 50.73 75% 38.8

Urban Extension Greenfield >500 55.25 75% 51.9

4.5 The quantum of land in each typology is informed by the anticipated pattern of development
being put forward in the Draft Core Strategy but also by past trends of dwelling completions,
information on SHLAA sites and takes account of the potential delivery of circa 6,000
residential units throughout the District during the Plan period.

4.6 For the larger urban extensions and Greenfield sites LSH adopted a lower gross to net ratio
than the brownfield sites based on past development experience and the potential
requirements for open space, potential ecological mitigation, potential significant SuDS

storage areas that may be required for some typologies and assimilating sites into the existing
urban grain whilst also considering the likely locality of the different forms of development.

4.7 Brownfield development is likely to achieve greater development density than Greenfield.

Dwelling Mix
4.8 Past trends have informed current assumptions. These trends are to be maintained and
represent the predominant type of development expected. Through discussions with BDC it is
thought a realistic assumption that recent trends in dwelling mix are likely to continue. A
market approach to unit types rather than intervention has therefore been adopted.

4.9 BDC provided a suggested mix of typologies which LSH have adapted to reflect past trends
and predictions of future activity with regard to anticipated demographic trends and
assumptions based upon given the largely rural nature of the District. These assumptions
suggest that the demand for specific housing types consistent with current trends from past
implemented planning permissions and that limited provision of flat accommodation, restricted
to predominantly Large Urban Extensions and Urban Greenfield Infill Sites. These are set out
in the table below.

4.10 Table 2: Proposed Mix of flats and houses as agreed with BDC
Flats Houses
Typology 1 Bed Flat 2 Bed Flat 3 Bed Flat 4 Bed Fla t 2 Bed House 3 Bed House 4 Bed + House Totals
Small Rural
Infill 1-3
units

0% 0% 0% 0% 15% 43% 42% 100%
Rural >3
units
Greenfield

0% 8% 0% 0% 32% 39% 21% 100%
Brownfield
Infill

8% 10% 1% 0% 30% 25% 26% 100%
Urban
Greenfield
Infill

21% 25% 1% 0% 21% 24% 8% 100%
Large
Urban
Extension

8% 10% 1% 0% 30% 25% 26% 100%

Scenario Testing Type of Dwelling

4.11 LSH have also undertaken some sensitivity testing around scenarios that examine slightly
elevated levels of flatted accommodation to understand the level of impact associated with
greater density levels in certain areas.

4.12 In the table below it can be seen that the level of flats in the High and Medium density sub
markets have been adjusted to show 30% rather than 10% and that the percentage of houses
has been adjusted down accordingly. This produces an outcome of 37% affordable housing
due to the higher density of flatted development. There is a 10% higher capital value
attached to flats together with a lower land take to accommodate them. It follows, therefore,
that increasing the proportion of flats would result in the ability to afford more S106
contributions/affordable housing. (Although in reality, market demand for such units within the
District is likely to be more limited given past trends).

4.13 Table 3: Higher Density Flatted Area

Dwelling Sizes
4.14 The proposed residential unit sizes used in the model as highlighted in the table below, and
reflect sizes agreed with BDC and the HCA. The model includes units based on HCA lifetime
standards for homes. However, through the investigation of comparable schemes within the
District, LSH have noted that newly built units for private sale currently show on average units
which are smaller than HCA standards. This makes the outputs of this research more robust
as the build costs for smaller units are likely to be lower than those assumed in this study.

Flats Houses
Housing
Sub
Markets % total area £m2 sales £psf sales
% total
area
£m2
sales
£psf
sales
Blended
Sales
Rates
£m2
Blended
Sales
Rates
£psf
V High 0% 2,995 278 100% 2,852 265 2,852 265
High 30% 2,554 237 70% 2,433 226 2,469 229
Medium 30% 2,181 203 70% 2,077 193 2,109 196
Low 0% 1,865 173 100% 1,776 165 1,776 165

4.15 Table 4: Residential unit sizes used in the assessment

Sales Values
4.16 In order to attribute accurate sales values within the model, market research was undertaken
across the subject area, investigating second hand residential property sales, and new build
residential developments (by interviewing agents including: Elwell Taylor, Bairstow Eves and
Abbotts and developers including; Persimmon Homes, Bellway Homes, Charles Church and
Barratt Homes). Market Values were investigated for the year to date for the subject area
using Land Registry data and new build data obtained through speaking with Developers and
Agents. Additional information was gained through LSH’s Joint Venture residential partner,
Sequence (William H Brown) who has a local office in Sudbury. The new build data was a
combination of actual sales and asking prices in specific locations. The limited numbers of
current new build sales mean that estimates for a number of ward areas have had to be
derived from a combination of new build and second hand sales evidence. Details of this
evidence are contained in Appendix 1.

4.17 Through our research we were able to establish sales values (£/sq ft) of flats and houses in
sub-markets within the subject area aligned to groups of parishes within wards. Sub-markets
were assessed at a Ward level using data collected at a Post Code and Parish level. The
table in Appendix 1 sets out the ward assumed values which are highlighted according to the
goal seeked value bands in the model (see below section).

4.18 Our research (See Appendix 1) shows that new build was typically more valuable than second
hand property when the differentials in second-hand and known new build sales were
examined. Our research suggests that that new build property generally attracts a 10-15%
premium value over second-hand residential property in the same location. The second hand
market data, therefore provided a useful sense check for LSH to anticipate/estimate new build
achievable prices in areas where new build data was unavailable.

Flats Houses
1 bed flat 2 bed flat 3 bed flat 4 bed flat 2 bed h ouse 3 bed house 4 bed +
house
51.3 sqm 54.3 sqm 80.0 sqm 90.0 sqm 85.8 sqm 118.8 sqm 198.8 sqm Affordable
49.4 sqm 57.1 sqm 80.0 sqm 90.0 sqm 71.3 sqm 81.1 s qm 97.0 sqm Private

4.19 Where the new build data collected reflected asking prices a 5% discount was applied to
reflect anticipated market value of the final sales, based on our research.

4.20 Table 5: Sales Values of New Build Housing by Ward across Babergh (£psf).

Ward Sales Value per sqft new
build housing
Alton £185
Berners £225
Boxford £180
Brett Vale £165
Brook £180
Bures St Mary £220
Chadacre £207
Dodnash £225
Glemsford &
Stanstead
£165
Great Cornard (North) £177
Great Cornard
(South)
£196
Hadleigh North £205
Hadleigh South £205
Holbrook £205
Lavenham £260
Leavenheath £200
Long Melford £200
Lower Brett £220
Nayland £285
North Cosford £190
Mid Samford £210
Pinewood £195
South Cosford £195
Sudbury North £195
Sudbury East £195
Sudbury South £195
Waldingfield £193

Key

Lowest Value
Highest Value

Market Value Bands
4.21 The numbers of units anticipated in each typology and location were interrogated by BDC
examining existing housing land allocations and potential locations through the Core Strategy,
previous trends and those coming forward from the SHLAA process. LSH tested the
anticipated supply into four value bands that emerged from our research.

4.22 The value bands were evenly distributed via a ‘goal seek’ to maximum and minimum values
attributed to the model via LSH research. This gave a range of values for new build residential
houses of between £165psf to £285psf across the District with locations such as Lavenham
and Nayland showing the highest values and Brett Vale and Glemsford / Stanstead showing
values at the low end of the range.

4.23 The majority of new build units (approximately 66% to total units) are expected to be delivered
in the medium value band. The assumed dispersal of typologies and value bands is shown in
the table below:
.
4.24 Table 6: Typologies and Value Bands
Parish
URBAN EXTENSION
URBAN INFILL GREEN
URBAN INFILL BROWN
RURAL GREEN
RURAL BROWN
Units Units Units Units Units
High (£265/sft) 0 0 0 33 48
Medium High (£226/sft) 250 360 498 293 277
Medium (£193/sft) 1900 1010 478 311 232
Low (£165/sft) 0 106 0 116 96
Total Units Check 2150 1476 976 753 653

4.25 Within the HCA AWVM a value uplift, for flatted development of 10% from market evidence
and discussions with developers, was applied to reflect our experience that flatted units
achieve a higher sale value per sq m than those for houses.

4.26 The HCA AWVM also allows for ground rents for flatted units which generate a small
additional revenue stream. LSH assumed Ground Rents to be £500 per annum for one and 2
bed flats with a marginal increase for 3 bed flatted accommodation based on market
evidence. This income has been capitalised at a relatively secure yield of 5.5% on market
units to reflect the nature of occupation which LSH view as a robust approach.

Threshold Land Values
4.27 In arriving at a reasonable benchmark land value for the typologies LSH have had regard to
the following:

• The Market Value of the Site in accordance of the RICS Valuation Manual 7
th
Edition;
• Reasonable assumptions concerning development in terms of uses, density, bulk, scale
and massing having regard to the development plan;
• The overall planning status, existing physical condition and improvement to the Site;
• Emerging policy and reasonable prospect of changes to policy at national, regional and
local level and:
• All other matters which the market would have regard to in arriving at a Market Value.

4.28 In an assessment of a reasonable benchmark lan d value LSH have recognised that
development proposals should be compatible with local planning context and design
principles. LSH have had regard to the location of variations in potential scheme
requirements.

4.29 Most notably LSH identified two land types:

• Brownfield
• Greenfield

4.30 Brownfield land relates to that land previously developed. This land is anticipated to be in
urban locations but is more likely to have some potential for contamination. However, it is also
assumed that Brownfield land will be effectively serviced to the site boundary and have an
existing permitted use. From our experience, and a combination of the above factors, LSH
anticipate that Brownfield land will achieve a higher premium than that of Greenfield land.

4.31 Greenfield land is assumed not to have been previously developed and is unlikely to be
serviced to the boundary, therefore it will require additional infrastructure to be developed. As
a result LSH anticipate Greenfield values to be lower than those of Brownfield land.

4.32 To identify Market Value as the appropriate benchmark LSH have investigated current
serviced residential land values within the Subject Area. Unfortunately, due to the current
economic conditions there was a dearth of comparable land transaction evidence. However
LSH did identify that brownfield residential land had recently sold for circa £344,000 per gross
acre (c. £139,000 per ha) in Glemsford, which, given that this area has the lowest sales value,
provides a limited indication of the current residential land market in the area.

4.33 The most recent VOA Property Market Report (January 2011) suggests that bulk residential
land values in the East (Norwich and Cambridge) area are circa £1.6-2.49m per hectare or
c.£0.65m to £1m per acre. This data does not reflect local land values anticipated in Babergh,
which are anticipated to be below that of Norwich and to sit at the lower end of the above
range.

4.34 For the purposes of this report, LSH consider that it is appropriate to provide a range of
values which on balance reflect estimated values across the Subject Area.

4.35 Therefore using current day sales values and cost, LSH estimate a nominal price for
Brownfield residential land across Babergh to have a value in the range of £750,000 to
£1,000,000 per hectare (£300,000-£405,000 per acre). LSH estimate that Brownfield
residential land values reflect a premium of circa 15-20% of industrial land values estimated at
£600-635,000 per hectare.

4.36 In relation to Greenfield values, LSH have recently investigated agricultural land in
Hertfordshire and estimate an average of £24,000 per hectare. Based on HCA guidance on
“Transparent Assumptions” an allowance of 10 to 20 times agricultural value (existing use) is
acceptable to reflect an Alternative use (namely un-serviced residential).

4.37 Given Greenfield sites are assumed to be un-serviced, LSH have estimated that the current
market land value for unserviced residential land in Babergh ranges from £370,000 to
£400,000 per hectare (£150,000 -£160, 000 per acre). Furthermore, LSH estimate that rural
infill property will be likely to reflect a balance between Greenfield and Brownfield land values.

4.38 This approach reflects the market cycle and other uncertainties in the context of this report
rather than normal valuation tolerances. The lower end of the proposed range represents a
conservative view with a potential upside subject to market conditions and application of
planning policy. The lower end of the land value ranges have been used as the land value
threshold viability to cover the anticipate range in residential land values across Babergh:

• Brownfield Land Value Threshold: £750,000 per hectare or £303,521 per acre
• Rural infill Land Value Threshold £500,000 per hectare or £202,347 per acre
• Greenfield Land Value Threshold: £370,000 per hectare or £149,737 per acre

Price Inflation / Construction Cost Inflation
4.39 The HCA AWVM allows for the inclusion of House Price Inflation on the assumption that the
period of time the viability assessment is to consider will be a reasonably long period, where
sale values and costs may change. This assessment has applied 20 years to reflect the span
of the Draft Core Strategy.

4.40 In the Model inflation has been smoothed over the last 20 yrs and aggregated to an average
rate. LSH allowed for no growth in house prices over the first 5 years (Cost/Value neutral
assumption for this period) and then increases by 4% year on year for the Plan Period to
reflect long term trends.

4.41 This approach seems reasonable given that the housing market is not anticipated to increase
significantly over the next five years, whilst the net increase in development value is estimated
to only be circa 1% per annum.

4.42 LSH have made an additional allowance in build cost inflation to reflect an increase in costs
reflecting the change in code for sustainable homes when Code Levels 4, 5 and 6 are likely to
change in accordance with current Government policy which we have reflected in Year 6
(2018).

4.43 Table 7: Rates of Inflation

Construction Costs
4.44 For Construction Costs LSH interrogated BCIS Online (Building Cost Information Service).
BCIS is a service provided by the RICS and is the leading provider of cost information to the
building industry. Build Costs are provided showing a sample size for areas chosen and
providing prices per £/m2 gross internal floor area.

4.45 The methodology to extract a figure for the Model included the adoption of figures given for
the Ipswich fringe location, using the 2nd Quarter data for 2012, applied to Flats (Median
level cost) which gave a cost of £949 psqm and for houses (2 storey, median level cost) at
£795 psqm.

Total Construction Cost % Increase

Annual
Inflation

Annual Sales
Price inflation %
Annual
Construction Cost
Inflation %
(A)
Future Standards
cost uplift %
(B)
Total %
(A+B)
Year 1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Year 2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Year 3 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Year 4 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Year 5 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Year 6 4.0% 3.0% 6.0% 6.0%
Year 7 4.0% 3.0% 3.0% 6.0%
Year 8 4.0% 3.0% 3.0% 6.0%
Year 9 4.0% 3.0% 3.0% 6.0%
Year 10 4.0% 3.0% 3.0% 6.0%
Year 11 4.0% 3.0% 3.0% 6.0%
Year 12 4.0% 3.0% 3.0% 6.0%
Year 13 4.0% 3.0% 3.0% 6.0%
Year 14 4.0% 3.0% 3.0% 6.0%
Year 15 4.0% 3.0% 3.0% 6.0%
Year 16 4.0% 3.0% 3.0% 6.0%
Year 17 4.0% 3.0% 3.0% 6.0%
Year 18 4.0% 3.0% 3.0% 6.0%
Year 19 4.0% 3.0% 3.0% 6.0%
Year 20 4.0% 3.0% 3.0% 6.0%

4.46 Table 8: BCIS Build Costs

4.47 Additional costs were looked at from development experience on sites elsewhere and a rate
of £100 psqm was chosen for site external treatments outside of plots as BCIS provides for on
plot costs only. This approach reflects reviewed developments by national house builders,
such as Barratt Homes and Taylor Wimpey.

4.48 BCIS costs currently reflect Code for Sustainable Homes Level 3. Further to discussions with
the HCA it was agreed that the increase in cost over the first 6 year period (including Code
Level 4) was likely to deliver minimal net increase in development costs. This is partly due to
improvements in technology, development economics and economies of scale as sustainable
development techniques become more prevalent. However, LSH acknowledge that currently
Code Levels 5 and 6 are likely to add additional cost to development and therefore an
allowance of 6% cost inflation in Year 6 (2018) has been included in the model as a result.

Building
Function £/m2 gross internal floor area
New Build Mean Lowest
Lower
Quartile Median
Upper
Quartile Highest

Estate Housing
General 832 313 714 813 922 1743
Single Storey 911 313 790 882 1020 1585
2 Storey 812 434 706 795 904 1569
3 Storey 815 542 683 766 908 1743
4 Storey or above 1181 899 _ 1080 _ 1562

Flats (Apartments)
Generally 988 392 820 949 1103 3042
1-2 Storey 949 560 813 918 1054 1771
3-5 Storey 972 392 816 949 1100 2000
6+ Storey 1345 745 1019 1240 1501 3042

Other Costs
4.49 LSH applied a number of standard assumptions based primarily on the HCA Economic
Viability Assessment Toolkit. These included:

Developer Costs – Profit at 17% – this is a stringent market rate under current conditions but
is a reasonable aggregated rate across the Plan Period to assume. Developer Costs also
include: Preliminaries; Marketing; Legal Fees; Agents Fees; Finance; Design and
Sustainability and Site Acquisition.

Developers Return on Affordable Housing – at 6% of construction costs – this was provided
by HCA data and is felt to be representative of level achieved on comparable schemes

Design & Sustainability Standards Factor – 5% on cost – reflecting the requirement to give
sufficient headroom to individual scheme variations in design and sustainability costs.

Professional Fees – 12% – to reflect costs incurred by consultants and architects involved in
the individual projects.

Marketing Costs – 3% – this is a reasonable assumption but could be reduced to say 1.5 –
2% where economies of scale permit in the larger developments.

Site Acquisition and Stamp Duty – 4% – reflecting Inland Revenue regulations.

Development Finance – 7% – This percentage level was derived from interrogating general
development finance lending rates available in the marketplace currently.

Affordable Housing
4.50 Affordable Housing data and capital values are taken from HCA information originally fed in to
the model and then sense checked against affordable rent model with affordable rents
assessed at 80% of MV from Hometrack rental data. The data provided has been maintained
with market rental levels reduced by 20% broadly reflecting the capitalisation assumptions
made previously.

4.51 Affordable Housing Capital Values are based on information provided by the HCA and
corroborated by discussions with Babergh and local Registered Providers. The assumption is
based upon a capitalisation of 80% of market value rents for the affordable housing category.
As affordable housing is moving from a social rent to an affordable rent model, no social rent
tenure has been allowed for. Shared ownership examines a percentage of rent and
percentage of equity sold to provide a total capitalisation of these units, this data was provided
by HCA and agreed by LSH. Therefore we have assumed a 75% Affordable Rent and 25%
Shared Ownership split of affordable tenures.

4.52 The model was run on an assumption that nil Housing Association Grant will be available and
an initial target rate of 35% Affordable Housing units was set.

S106 Contributions
4.53 BDC undertook an initial review of potential infrastructure requirements across the District and
more specifically on urban extension areas and found there is variance in terms of what S.106
requirements may be. Also LSH understand that there will, in future, be a move towards to
the development of CIL. Current S106 requirements for Babergh are limited but there is a
significant amount of cost which would be associated with developing sufficient infrastructure
to support Urban Extensions and other areas of growth expected on Greenfield Land.

4.54 The Suffolk County Council Developers Guide indicates that contributions will be related to the
following areas of infrastructure:

● Air Quality
● Archaeology
● Early Years and Childcare Provision
● Education Provision
● Fire and Rescue Provision
● Health Infrastructure Provision
● Highways and Transport
● Libraries and Archive Infrastructure Provision
● Police Infrastructure Provision
● Supported Housing Provision
● Waste Disposal Facilities
● Open Space Provision (Babergh)

4.55 Looking at current levels from the Suffolk County Council Developers Guide and further
research undertaken by Babergh, different rates were adopted for the different site typologies
with recognition of the increased infrastructure requirements for urban extension sites. A rate
of £6,200 as standard with £8,500 per unit for infill schemes and £10,100 per unit has been
applied for urban extension development following BDC’s assessment of likely infrastructure
requirements across the District.

5. Area Wide Viability Model
Outputs
5.1 Based on the results of the HCA AWVM, (the base outputs of the HCA AWVM can be seen at
Appendix 1), we conclude that the achievable affordable housing percentage, which delivers
viable development is circa 35% at the levels of S106 payments suggested by BDC.

5.2 The level of achievable affordable housing by typology is set out in the table below:

5.3 Table 9: Level of Achievable Affordable Housing by Typology
Typology Affordable Housing
1. Rural > 3 units Greenfield 34%
2. Small Rural Brownfield Infill 25%
3. Urban Greenfield Infill 45%
4 Large Urban Extension 42%

5.4 The table below is an extract from the AWVM and shows the sales values at the base output
where affordable housing is being provided at 35%.

5.5 Table 10: Sales Values at Base Output with Affordable Housing at 35%

5.6 These figures set a baseline level for affordable housing percentages and from here
sensitivity tests have been undertaken to ascertain what effect is had on the affordable
housing percentages given different estimates of S106 contributions.

Flats Base
Output
Sales Val
Houses
Base
Output
Sales Val
Affordable
Housing %
V High £2,995 £2,852
High £2,554 £2,433
Medium £2,181 £2,077
Low £1,865 £1,776
35%

5.7 The work that has been undertaken in feeding into the Typologies and Value Bands (i.e.
breaking values down into Wards, Parishes and Postcodes), will help Babergh move towards
a more refined model to assess its CIL charging schedule.

5.8 Looking at the small rural infill on brownfield sites (1-3 units) in isolation showed that these are
only able to provide 21% affordable housing. This is based on a site having an existing use
and that £6,200 would be required for local community infrastructure.

5.9 Table 11: Rural Affordable Housing Percentage

Payment in Lieu
5.10 It is understood that for small sites of less than 1-3 dwellings that a payment in lieu of
provision of affordable units on site is likely to be the desired approach. An in lieu payment
could be generated by examining the land residual of a notional scheme which provides for
21% Affordable housing against a scheme which provides for no affordable housing. A
blended rate of size of unit could then be applied to the difference in schemes to arrive at a
broad cost per average notional unit or on a square metre basis.

TYPOLOGY
AFFORDABLE
HOUSING %
1.Small rural brownfield infill 1-
3 units
21%

6. Sensitivity Testing

6.1 Sensitivity analysis tests the robustness of the results presented above; therefore in order to
assess the robustness of the viability of the proposals, it is necessary to consider the pricing
and cost inputs to the financial model.

6.2 A sensitivity analysis is a fairly simplistic approach to testing the viability and the robustness of
development. In essence, uncertainties can be identified in respect of the inputs and their
effect can be looked at in terms of development return. A profit benchmark can be used as a
performance measure. A prudent developer will also consider the sensitivities of a developer
and assess the risks of the particular project.

6.3 The below table sets out a table of sensitivity based on the proposed appraisal testing:

• Increase to build costs
• Increase to Section 106 costs
• Decrease of Section 106 costs
• Increase in sales values
• Decrease in sales values
• Changes in dwelling mix

Increase Build Costs

6.4 An increase in build costs was undertaken at two levels, i) 5% and ii) 10%. The impact on the
ability to provide affordable housing due to lower revenue can be seen in the table below:

6.5 Table 12: Increase in Build Costs

Build Cost
Flats
Build Cost
Houses
AFFORDABLE
HOUSING %
Base Output 949 795 35%
Increase Build Costs 5% 996 835 29%
Increase Build Costs
10% 1044 875 22%

Increase S106 by £1000

6.6 S106 contributions were increased by £1000 per typology. It can be seen below that the
percentage affordable housing reduces slightly as a result of the decrease in revenue
available.

6.7 Table 13: Increase S106 by £1000
Base Output S106
AFFORDABLE
HOUSING %
1.Small rural infill 1-3 units £6,200
2. Rural>3 units greenfield £6,200
3. Brownfield Infill £6,200
4. Urban Greenfield Infill £8,500
5. Large Urban Extensions £10,100
35%
Increase S106 by
£1,000
1.Small rural infill 1-3 units £7,200
2. Rural>3 units greenfield £7,200
3. Brownfield Infill £7,200
4. Urban Greenfield Infill £9,500
5. Large Urban Extensions £11,100
34%

Decrease S106 by £1000

6.8 S106 Costs were then decreased by £1000 per typology and, as can be seen in the table
below, this produces a slight increase in the amount of affordable housing that can be
provided which reflects the slight increase in revenue available.

6.9 Table 14: Decrease S106 by £1000

Reduce Sales Values by 5%

6.10 Sales values were then reduced by 5% and as can be seen in the table below, the affordable
housing figure drops considerably to 26% as opposed to the base level of 35% due to the
lower level of revenue available.

6.11 Table 15: Reduce Sales Values by 5%

Flats
reduce
sales
value 5%
Houses
reduce
sales
value5%
Affordable
Housing %
V High £2,845 £2,709
High £2,426 £2,311
Medium £2,072 £1,973
Low £1,772 £1,687
26%

Base Output S106
AFFORDABLE
HOUSING %
1.Small rural infill 1-3 units £6,200
2. Rural>3 units greenfield £6,200
3. Brownfield Infill £6,200
4. Urban Greenfield Infill £8,500
5. Large Urban Extensions £10,100
35%
Decrease S106 by
£1,000
1.Small rural infill 1-3 units £5,200
2. Rural>3 units greenfield £5,200
3. Brownfield Infill £5,200
4. Urban Greenfield Infill £7,500
5. Large Urban Extensions £9,100
37%

Increase Sales Values by 5%

6.12 Sales values were then increased and as the table below shows, the level of affordable
housing increases to reflect the availability of extra revenue.

6.13 Table 16: Increase Sales Values by 5%

Flats
increase
sales
value 5%
Houses
increase
sales
value5%
Affordable
Housing %
V High £3,145 £2,995
High £2,682 £2,554
Medium £2,290 £2,181
Low £1,958 £1,865
43%

Changes in Dwelling Mix
6.14 The table below shows the difference in affordable housing when the Urban Greenfield Infill
flatted development has been reduced to 11% for 1 bed flats and 15% for 2 bed flats. The
affordable housing reduces by 2% due to a reduction in density of development.

6.15 Table 17: Changes in Dwelling Mix

Flats (percent of dwellings) Houses (percent of dwe llings)
BASE OUTPUT
No of
Dwellings 1bed flat 2 bed flat 3 bed flat 4 bed fla t
2 bed
house
3 bed
house
4 bed
+
house
Affordable
Housing
1.Small rural infill 1-3
units 633 0% 0% 0% 0% 15% 43% 42%
2. Rural>3 units
greenfield 753 0% 8% 0% 0% 32% 39% 21%
3. Brownfield Infill 976 8% 10% 1% 0% 30% 25% 26%
4. Urban Greenfield Infill 1476 21% 25% 1% 0% 21% 2 4% 8%
5. Large Urban
Extensions 2150 8% 10% 1% 0% 30% 25% 26%
35%
REDUCTION
1.Small rural infill 1-3
units 633 0% 0% 0% 0% 15% 43% 42%
2. Rural>3 units
greenfield 753 0% 8% 0% 0% 32% 39% 21%
3. Brownfield Infill 976 8% 10% 1% 0% 30% 25% 26%
4. Urban Greenfield Infill 1476 11% 15% 1% 0% 31% 3 4% 8%
5. Large Urban
Extensions 2150 8% 10% 1% 0% 30% 25% 26%
33%

7. Conclusions

7.1 The HCA’s Area Wide Viability Assessment has been used to assess the impact of Babergh
District Council’s proposed Draft Core Strategy Polices on potential viability and deliverability
of residential development across the Authority.

7.2 LSH were asked to undertake a financial assessment in order to confirm as to whether the
proposed percentage of affordable housing was achievable given market data and agreed
assumptions with Babergh District Council and the HCA.

7.3 This report has been prepared as part of the evidence to support the draft Core Strategy
relation to financial viability. It is noted that the Core Strategy has yet to be adopted by
Babergh District Council.

7.4 Present day series and market data has been used to establish the overall value of the
completed development across the Study area. Assumed costs reflect BICS data and/or have
been agreed with the HCA and Babergh District Council.

7.5 The benchmarks used for assessing the viability appraisal profit on cost and market land
value and have been robustly tested through sensitivity testing. The results are based on
conservative estimates of land values and a cautious approach to price inflation and build
costs.

7.6 The results of the appraisal show that Babergh can continue to seek an overall level of 35%
affordable housing on an area wide basis. There is, however, some variability as some
housing typologies could achieve greater than this amount and remain viable whilst others
cannot achieve 35%, most notably the small rural brownfield sites, which have a more limited
ability to deliver affordable housing.

7.7 It follows therefore that affordable housing policy proposed in the Core Strategy would, on
balance, remain reasonable based on the assumptions proposed and agreed with Babergh
District Council and the HCA in this report. The Council may wish to consider a reduced rate
for smaller rural sites.

Appendix 1

ppendices

Estimated New Build Prices for
Babergh

BABERGH – ESTIMATED NEW BUILD PRICES
Secondhand Prices New Build Prices
Postcodes Ward Parish
Alton Brantham
CO11 1 Tattingstone
IP9 2 Sutton
Berners Chelmondiston
IP9 1 Erwarton
Freston £205
Shotley
Woolverstone
Boxford Boxford
CO10 5 Edwardstone
CO10 9NY CO10 9NZ Groton
IP7 6 Milden
IP7 7 Lindsey £161
Brett Vale Bildeston
IP7 7 Brettenham
Hitcham
Wattisham £148
Brook Belstead
IP1 5 IP2 0 Burstall
IP2 8 IP8 3 Chattisham
IP9 2 Copdock & Washbrook
Hintlesham £164
Sproughton
Wherstead
Bures St Mary Bures St Mary
CO10 0 CO10 5 Little Cornard
CO6 3 CO8 5 Newton £196
Chadacre Boxted
CO10 9BJ IP29 4 Hartest
IP30 0 Lawshall
Shimpling
Somerton £173
Dodnash Bentley
CO11 1 East Bergholt £204
CO7 6
IP9 2
Glemsford & StansteadStanstead
CO10 7 Glemsford £151
CO10 9 IP29 4
Great Cornard (North)Great Cornard North
CO10 0 £138 £177
CO10 2
Great Cornard (South)Great Cornard South
CO10 0 £196
Hadleigh North Hadleigh North
IP7 5 IP7 6 £182 £204
IP7 7 IP7 9
Hadleigh South Hadleigh South £179
IP7 5 IP7 6BG
Holbrook Harkstead
IP9 1 IP9 2 Holbrook
Lavenham Lavenham £235
CO10 9
Leavenheath Assington
CO10 5 CO6 4 Leavenheath £178
CO8 5BW CO8 5JY
Long Melford Alpheton
CO10 0 Long Melford £192
CO10 9
Lower Brett Higham
CO10 5 Layham
CO6 4TE Polstead
CO6 5 Raydon
CO6 6 Shelley £198
IP7 5
Nayland Nayland with Wissington

CO6 4 Stoke by Nayland £260
North Cosford Chelsworth
Cockfield
CO10 9 Kettlebaston
IP30 0 Monks Eleigh £169
IP7 7 Preston St Mary
Thorpe Morieux
Brent Eleigh
Mid Samford Capel St Mary
Holton St Mary
CO7 6 Stratford St Mary
IP9 2 Wenham Magna £187
Wenham Parva
Pinewood Pinewood
IP2 0SN IP2 0SW
IP2 9 IP8 3
South Cosford Aldham
Elmsett
IP7 6 Kersey
IP7 7 Nedging with Naughton £160
Semer
Whatfield
Sudbury East Sudbury East £145
CO10 1
CO10 2
Sudbury North Sudbury North £144
CO10 1
CO10 0AA CO10 2YB
Sudbury South Sudbury South £144
CO10 1 CO10 2
CO10 7
Waldingfield Acton
CO10 0 CO10 1 CO10 2 Chilton
CO10 3 CO10 7 Great Waldingfield £170 £193
CO10 8 CO10 9 Little Waldingfield
£195

Appendices
Appendices
New Build Evidence for Babergh

BABERGH NEW BUILD EVIDENCE
Development House Type Beds Price Size sf Discount £psf
5%
1 Weavers Meadow Chiswick 2 159,950 627 7,998 151,953 242
Lady Lane 2 165,950 710 8,298 157,653 222
Hadleigh Burston – 3 storey terr with gge 3 184,250 910 9,213 175,038 192
Suffolk EOT 3 186,950 910 9,348 177,603 195
IP7 6AF Arundel – semi next to AF 3 209,950 915 10,498 199,453 218
Aldham – 3 storey semi 3 208,650 1,039 10,433 198,218 191
Persimmon 3 209,750 1,039 10,488 199,263 192
0844 248 1236 Gatcombe – 2 storey 4 239,950 1,098 11,998 227,953 208
Curtiss – 2 storey 4 239,950 1,155 11,998 227,953 197
4 249,950 1,155 12,498 237,453 206
Lulworth -det 4 249,950 1,169 12,498 237,453 203
Lancaster – 3 storey 5 324,950 1,709 16,248 308,703 181
Ave £204psf
2 Cromwell Fields The Montagu – terr 2 159,995 659 8,000 151,995 231
Folly Road The Sheffield – semi 2 164,995 705 8,250 156,745 222
Great Waldingfield The Rossiter – semi 3 189,995 878 9,500 180,495 206
CO10 0WN The Fleetwood – semi 3 209,995 954 10,500 199,495 209
Bellway
01787 377231
Ave £217psf
3 Hitchcock Place Detached 4 256,500 1,248 12,825 243,675 195
Sudbury
Individual Developer
Ave £195psf
4 The Priory 5 335,000 1,757 16,750 318,250 181
Cann Close
Sudbury CO10 1
Charles Church
Ave £181psf
Achieved
5 Stour Croft The Kerry, Terr 1 109,000 480 227
Bures Road The Chiswick, Terr 2 138,000 620 223
Great Cornard The Adlington, Terr 2 141,000 640 220
Knebworth, Terr 2 140,500 710 198
Persimmon Hatfield, Terr 2 149,950 730 205
Gainsborough 3 167,000 830 201
Sandringham, Semi 3 125,965 850 148
Brundall, Terr 3 178,950 860 208
Arundell, Semi 3 179,000 910 197
Balmoral, Semi 3 193,000 940 205
Buckingham, Det 3 195,000 950 205
The Leicester, 4 141,365 1,180 120
Ave £196psf

Case Studies

Land Registry Sold Prices for
Babergh

Land Reg Sold Prices Babergh
Date Address Beds Type Sold £ Size sqm Size Sqft £psf Ward Ave Prices £psf
12/05/2011
Bures St Mary
10/01/2012 CO8 5JD 3 Semi 168,000 109 1173 143Bures St Mary
07/10/2011 CO8 5JH 2 Semi 150,000 70 754 199Bures St Mary
19/09/2011 CO8 5HZ 3 Semi 225,000 288 3100 73Bures St Mary
16/09/2011 CO8 5ED 2 Semi 160,000 69 743 215Bures St Mary
19/08/2011 CO8 5JG 4 Det 385,000 186 2002 192Bures St Mary
29/07/2011 CO8 5JD 3 Det 250,000 196 2110 118Bures St Mary
15/07/2011 CO8 5LA 5 Det 432,500 159 1711 253Bures St Mary
31/05/2011 CO8 5JH 2 Semi 150,000 65 700 214Bures St Mary
09/05/2011 CO8 5JR 4 Det 585,000 204 2196 266Bures St Mary
03/05/2011 CO8 5HZ 2 Det 188,000 62 667 282Bures St Mary £196
Great Cornard North
22/12/2011 CO10 0DD 4 Semi 190,000 119 1281 148Great Cornard North
22/12/2011 CO10 0DG 3 Det 210,000 148 1593 132Great Cornard North
25/07/2011 CO10 0DU 4 Semi 142,000 97 1044 136Great Cornard North
22/07/2011 CO10 0DH 3 Semi 160,000 127 1367 117Great Cornard North
04/07/2011 CO10 0DH 2 Semi 160,000 95 1023 156Great Cornard North
01/07/2011 CO10 0DB 3 Semi 160,000 85 915 175Great Cornard North
10/06/2011 CO10 0EH 4 Semi 352,000 209 2250 156Great Cornard North
20/05/2011 CO10 0DL 2 Semi 130,000 107 1152 113Great Cornard North
12/05/2011 CO10 0EZ 3 Semi 130,000 112 1206 108Great Cornard North £138
Date Address Beds Type Sold £ Size sqm Size Sqft £psf Ward Ave Prices £psf
Hadleigh North
28/10/2011 IP7 5DB 1 Semi 111,000 63 678 164Hadleigh North
05/07/2011 IP7 5BS 3 Terr 172,500 86 926 186Hadleigh North
05/07/2011 IP7 5DF 2 Terr 151,500 100 1076 141Hadleigh North
01/07/2011 IP7 5BY 2 Terr 118,000 47 506 233Hadleigh North
21/06/2011 IP7 5BW 3 Terr 173,000 91 980 177Hadleigh North
10/06/2011 IP7 5BD 3 Terr 184,000 117 1259 146Hadleigh North
31/05/2011 IP7 5BS 3 Semi 181,000 75 807 224Hadleigh North £182

Date Address Beds Type Sold £ Size sqm Size Sqft £psf Ward Ave Prices £psf
Brook
16/12/2011 IP8 3EX 4 Det 250,000 96 1033 242Brook
12/12/2011 IP8 3EX 3 Semi 230,000 137 1475 156Brook
09/12/2011 IP8 3DT 4 Det 440,000 311 3348 131Brook
02/12/2011 IP8 3JF 3 Det 250,000 169 1819 137Brook
30/11/2011 IP2 0DU 4 Det 270,000 130 1399 193Brook
25/11/2011 IP2 0DS 5 Det 400,000 208 2239 179Brook
04/11/2011 IP8 3DN 3 Semi 240,000 91 980 245Brook
14/10/2011 IP8 3BQ 3 Semi 200,000 187 2013 99Brook
07/10/2011 IP8 3JF 3 Det 245,000 176 1895 129Brook
19/08/2011 IP8 3EW 4 Det 310,000 177 1905 163Brook
27/07/2011 IP8 3LS 3 Det 284,000 142 1528 186Brook
01/07/2011 IP8 3HZ 2 Det 157,000 174 1873 84Brook
03/06/2011 IP8 3AE 5 Det 725,000 444 4779 152Brook
14/04/2011 IP8 3ET 1 Terr 110,000 50 538 204Brook £164
Date Address Beds Type Sold £ Size sqm Size Sqft £psf Ward Ave Prices £psf
Berners
12/01/2012 IP9 1LE 4 Semi 175,000 68 732 239Berners
16/12/2011 IP9 1DY 1 Semi 124,250 142 1528 81Berners
08/12/2011 IP9 1AR 5 Det 550,000 332 3574 154Berners
08/11/2011 IP9 1HS 2 Det 190,000 131 1410 135Berners
12/01/2011 IP9 1HY 3 Det 315,000 111 1195 264Berners
30/09/2011 IP9 1JB 2 Semi 185,000 121 1302 142Berners
29/09/2011 IP9 1JE 3 Det 270,000 57 614 440Berners
23/09/2011 IP9 1AF 4 Terr 282,500 69 743 380Berners
09/09/2011 IP9 1HU 3 Semi 165,000 85 915 180Berners
05/08/2011 IP9 1HT 2 Det 138,000 115 1238 111Berners
28/07/2011 IP9 1NQ 3 Semi 156,500 56 603 260Berners
15/07/2011 IP9 1LP 3 Terr 210,000 55 592 355Berners
15/05/2011 IP9 1NB 2 Semi 130,000 98 1055 123Berners
10/06/2011 IP9 1NB 3 Terr 130,000 85 915 142Berners
27/05/2011 IP9 1HY 3 Det 350,000 206 2217 158Berners
23/05/2011 IP9 1DU 2 Semi 145,000 122 1313 110Berners £205

Date Address Beds Type Sold £ Size sqm Size Sqft £psf Ward Ave Prices £psf
Chadacre
20/12/2011 IP29 4PE 3 Semi 162,500 100 1076 151Chadacre
28/10/2011 IP29 4HH 4 Det 440,000 126 1356 324Chadacre
23/09/2011 IP29 4DL 3 Terr 173,000 98 1055 164Chadacre
21/09/2011 IP29 4HN 3 Semi 205,000 98 1055 194Chadacre
28/07/2011 IP29 4PL 3 Det 340,000 268 2885 118Chadacre
17/06/2011 IP29 4DR 4 Det 300,000 201 2164 139Chadacre
27/05/2011 IP29 4PA 3 Det 195,000 178 1916 102Chadacre
24/05/2011 IP29 4PW 3 Terr 165,000 80 861 192Chadacre £173
Date Address Beds Type Sold £ Size sqm Size Sqft £psf Ward Ave Prices £psf
North Cosford
28/11/2011 IP30 0HT 3 Semi 158,000 143 1539 103North Cosford
18/11/2011 IP30 0HT 2 Det 265,000 224 2411 110North Cosford
18/11/2011 IP30 0HA 3 Det 385,000 294 3165 122North Cosford
15/11/2011 IP30 0AY 5 Det 500,000 376 4047 124North Cosford
07/09/2011 IP30 0HE 3 Semi 230,000 72 775 297North Cosford
06/09/2011 IP30 0HT 2 Det 187,500 173 1862 101North Cosford
01/06/2011 IP30 0HE 4 Det 305,000 111 1195 255North Cosford
27/05/2011 IP30 0HY 1 Semi 95,000 73 786 121North Cosford
05/05/2011 IP30 0LB 4 Det 638,000 207 2228 286North Cosford £169
Lower Brett
24/02/2012 IP7 5JX 4 Det 465,000 311 3348 139Lower Brett
17/01/2012 IP7 5RD 5 Det 925,000 240 2583 358Lower Brett
09/12/2011 IP7 5LW 3 Semi 179,000 91 980 183Lower Brett
06/10/2011 CO6 5BB 4 Det 710,000 292 3143 226Lower Brett
04/10/2011 IP7 5JX 3 Semi 185,000 106 1141 162Lower Brett
09/09/2011 CO10 5JJ 3 Semi 375,000 196 2110 178Lower Brett
06/09/2011 CO6 5AD 2 Det 315,000 179 1927 163Lower Brett
02/09/2011 CO6 5AR 2 Semi 180,000 103 1109 162Lower Brett
30/08/2011 IP7 5JX 3 Semi 165,000 77 829 199Lower Brett
25/08/2011 IP7 5LX 2 Terr 145,000 147 1582 92Lower Brett
22/07/2011 IP7 5JD 5 Det 530,000 268 2885 184Lower Brett
11/07/2011 IP7 5JZ 1 Det 685,000 137 1475 465Lower Brett

Date Address Beds Type Sold £ Size sqm Size Sqft £psf Ward Ave Prices £psf
05/07/2011 IP7 5LX 3 Semi 155,000 159 1711 91Lower Brett
05/07/2011 IP7 5LX 3 Terr 155,000 95 1023 152Lower Brett
01/07/2011 IP7 5LP 2 Semi 195,000 84 904 216Lower Brett £198
Date Address Beds Type Sold £ Size sqm Size Sqft £psf Ward Ave Prices £psf
Boxford
27/02/2012 CO10 5HU 4 Det 282,000 232 2497 113Boxford
12/12/2011 CO10 5QE 5 Terr 200,000 84 904 221Boxford
12/12/2011 CO10 5QA 3 Terr 166,000 91 980 169Boxford
08/12/2011 CO10 5QA 3 Terr 170,000 104 1119 152Boxford
30/09/2011 CO10 5DZ 2 Terr 156,000 75 807 193Boxford
16/09/2011 CO10 5PN 7 Det 755,000 424 4564 165Boxford
09/09/2011 CO10 5JJ 3 Semi 375,000 196 2110 178Boxford
19/08/2011 CO10 5JA 5 Det 575,000 452 4865 118Boxford
18/08/2011 CO10 5NZ 4 Det 225,000 117 1259 179Boxford
11/08/2011 CO10 5HU 4 Det 250,000 193 2077 120Boxford
22/07/2011 CO10 5HP 3 Terr 265,000 196 2110 126Boxford
19/07/2011 CO10 5NZ 3 Terr 285,000 159 1711 167Boxford
19/07/2011 CO10 5NZ 4 Terr 665,000 331 3563 187Boxford £161
Dodnash
13/03/2012 CO7 6QN 2 Semi 148,000 61 657 225Dodnash
05/03/2012 CO7 6SR 3 Det 217,000 92 990 219Dodnash
14/02/2012 CO7 6TZ 4 Det 572,500 157 1690 339Dodnash
20/01/2012 CO7 6RR 4 Det 360,000 136 1464 246Dodnash
13/01/2012 CO7 6TS 3 Terr 170,000 100 1076 158Dodnash
14/12/2011 CO7 6TS 3 Terr 195,000 115 1238 158Dodnash
16/11/2011 CO7 6SR 2 Det 237,000 207 2228 106Dodnash
16/11/2011 CO7 6RG 3 Semi 195,000 79 850 229Dodnash
11/11/2011 CO7 6SL 2 Det 249,950 148 1593 157Dodnash
11/11/2011 CO7 6RB 6 Det 905,000 442 4758 190Dodnash
27/10/2011 CO7 6UR 5 Det 575,000 204 2196 262Dodnash
21/10/2011 CO7 6UD 3 Semi 198,000 70 753 263Dodnash
27/09/2011 CO7 6QY 3 Terr 208,000 127 1367 152Dodnash
23/09/2011 CO7 6RA 6 Det 867,500 381 4101 212Dodnash

Date Address Beds Type Sold £ Size sqm Size Sqft £psf Ward Ave Prices £psf
19/09/2011 CO7 6PQ 2 Det 135,000 69 743 182Dodnash
30/08/2011 CO7 6QY 3 Semi 173,000 99 1066 162Dodnash £204
Date Address Beds Type Sold £ Size sqm Size Sqft £psf Ward Ave Prices £psf
Lavenham
26/01/2012 CO10 9PT 3 Terr 270,000 192 2067 131Lavenham
13/01/2012 CO10 9QH 3 Terr 216,500 108 1163 186Lavenham
12/12/2011 CO10 9SG 3 Terr 155,000 93 1001 155Lavenham
09/12/2011 CO10 9QR 3 Terr 151,000 72 775 195Lavenham
30/11/2011 CO10 9RD 3 Terr 433,000 146 1572 276Lavenham
28/11/2011 CO10 9QT 3 Terr 220,000 84 904 243Lavenham
25/11/2011 CO10 9SP 5 Det 230,000 124 1335 172Lavenham
16/11/2011 CO10 9PT 2 Terr 246,000 212 2282 108Lavenham
14/11/2011 CO10 0SF 5 Semi 310,000 85 915 339Lavenham
04/11/2011 CO10 9RG 3 Det 327,000 116 1249 262Lavenham
07/09/2011 CO10 9SG 3 Semi 150,000 102 1098 137Lavenham
29/07/2011 CO10 9PY 2 Terr 175,000 60 646 271Lavenham
18/07/2011 CO10 9QG 3 Det 565,000 168 1808 312Lavenham
07/06/2011 CO10 9SB 5 Det 650,000 183 1970 330Lavenham
01/06/2011 CO10 9SB 5 Det 575,000 186 2002 287Lavenham
01/06/2011 CO10 9QT 3 Det 499,000 133 1432 349Lavenham
3752
21/04/2011 CO10 9QH 3 Det 389,950 186 2002 195Lavenham £235
Date Address Beds Type Sold £ Size sqm Size Sqft £psf Ward Ave Prices £psf
Long Melford
22/03/2012 CO10 9DA 4 Semi 430,000 114 1227 350Long Melford
09/03/2012 CO10 9DB 5 Det 775,000 424 4564 170Long Melford
10/02/2012 CO10 9HB 4 Det 310,000 137 1475 210Long Melford
13/01/2012 CO10 9EX 3 Semi 200,000 121 1302 154Long Melford
12/12/2011 CO10 9BS 3 Semi 205,000 125 1346 152Long Melford
29/11/2011 CO10 9BX 4 Det 300,000 108 1163 258Long Melford
11/11/2011 CO10 9EU 3 Semi 197,000 114 1227 161Long Melford
11/11/2011 CO10 9EE 3 Semi 137,000 103 1109 124Long Melford
07/11/2011 CO10 9DE 4 Det 235,000 110 1184 198Long Melford
27/10/2011 CO10 9EA 3 Semi 240,000 133 1432 168Long Melford
20/10/2011 CO10 9DE 4 Det 345,000 123 1324 261Long Melford

Date Address Beds Type Sold £ Size sqm Size Sqft £psf Ward Ave Prices £psf
26/08/2011 CO10 9EA 3 Det 310,000 130 1399 222Long Melford
25/08/2011 CO10 9DL 2 Terr 245,000 99 1066 230Long Melford
15/08/2011 CO10 9DW 2 Det 245,000 107 1152 213Long Melford
15/07/2011 CO10 9EP 1 Terr 98,000 95 1023 96Long Melford
07/07/2011 CO10 9BL 4 Det 395,000 259 2788 142Long Melford
04/07/2011 CO10 9HB 4 Det 310,000 139 1496 207Long Melford
10/06/2011 CO10 9DE 3 Det 295,000 138 1485 199Long Melford
28/04/2011 CO10 9EG 3 Terr 148,000 97 1044 142Long Melford
18/04/2011 CO10 9DH 3 Det 402,500 204 2196 183Long Melford £192
Date Address Beds Type Sold £ Size sqm Size Sqft £psf Ward Ave Prices £psf
South Cosford
07/03/2012 IP7 6NY 2 Semi 160,000 103 1109 144South Cosford
09/01/2012 IP7 6QE 3 Det 215,000 197 2121 101South Cosford
04/11/2011 IP7 7LH 2 Det 155,000 129 1389 112South Cosford
25/10/2011 IP7 6NR 4 Det 385,000 164 1765 218South Cosford
04/10/2011 IP7 6HB 4 Semi 280,000 150 1615 173South Cosford
18/08/2011 IP7 6LZ 5 Det 650,000 365 3929 165South Cosford
16/08/2011 IP7 6QN 2 Semi 150,000 103 1109 135South Cosford
12/08/2011 IP7 6RB 4 Det 295,000 156 1679 176South Cosford
05/08/2011 IP7 6LT 3 Det 447,000 217 2336 191South Cosford
17/05/2011 IP7 6ND 3 Det 240,000 150 1615 149South Cosford
08/04/2011 IP7 6QN 2 Terr 225,000 137 1475 153South Cosford
05/04/2011 IP7 6QS 3 Det 325,000 150 1615 201South Cosford £160
Date Address Beds Type Sold £ Size sqm Size Sqft £psf Ward Ave Prices £psf
Leavenheath
16/03/2012 CO6 4UU 2 Semi 141,000 54 581 243Leavenheath
22/02/2012 CO6 4US 3 Det 298,000 186 2002 149Leavenheath
02/12/2011 CO6 4RE 2 Terr 135,000 75 807 167Leavenheath
02/12/2011 CO6 4UL 4 Det 265,000 110 1184 224Leavenheath
01/12/2011 CO10 5LJ 3 Det 220,000 173 1862 118Leavenheath
28/11/2011 CO6 4UJ 4 Semi 240,000 204 2196 109Leavenheath
28/11/2011 CO6 4PQ 2 Det 175,000 113 1216 144Leavenheath
25/11/2011 CO10 5LP 3 Semi 235,000 101 1087 216Leavenheath
25/11/2011 CO10 5LS 2 Det 317,500 124 1335 238Leavenheath

Date Address Beds Type Sold £ Size sqm Size Sqft £psf Ward Ave Prices £psf
21/11/2011 CO6 4NS 2 Semi 163,000 70 753 216Leavenheath
23/09/2011 CO6 4RF 2 Terr 143,500 59 635 226Leavenheath
23/09/2011 CO6 4UL 4 Det 260,000 107 1152 226Leavenheath
05/08/2011 CO6 4UU 1 Terr 120,000 58 624 192Leavenheath
22/07/2011 CO6 4RE 2 Semi 152,500 67 721 211Leavenheath
22/07/2011 CO6 4PA 3 Det 249,995 201 2164 116Leavenheath
22/07/2011 CO6 4RE 2 Terr 151,250 57 614 247Leavenheath
13/07/2011 CO6 4UH 3 Det 230,000 255 2745 84Leavenheath
30/06/2011 CO6 4UN 4 Det 280,000 183 1970 142Leavenheath
23/06/2011 CO6 4PS 3 Semi 412,000 710 7642 54Leavenheath
20/05/2011 CO6 4NR 2 Terr 158,000 81 872 181Leavenheath
08/04/2011 CO6 4NR 2 Semi 153,000 58 624 245Leavenheath £178
Date Address Beds Type Sold £ Size sqm Size Sqft £psf Ward Ave Prices £psf
Brett Vale
23/03/2012 IP7 7DY 5 Det 336,000 156 1679 200Brett Vale
29/02/2012 IP7 7BG 4 Det 232,000 202 2174 107Brett Vale
24/02/2012 IP7 7NE 4 Det 350,000 196 2110 166Brett Vale
06/01/2012 IP7 7EP 3 Semi 332,000 155 1668 199Brett Vale
22/12/2011 IP7 7EW 3 Det 230,000 111 1195 193Brett Vale
08/12/2011 IP7 7NE 4 Det 355,000 250 2691 132Brett Vale
07/10/2011 IP7 7EG 3 Terr 128,500 82 883 146Brett Vale
31/08/2011 IP7 7LN 1 Terr 107,500 85 915 117Brett Vale
30/08/2011 IP7 7TG 3 Semi 131,000 63 678 193Brett Vale
05/08/2011 IP7 7QP 3 Det 313,500 170 1830 171Brett Vale
27/07/2011 IP7 7NE 4 Det 285,000 216 2325 123Brett Vale
12/05/2011 IP7 7BG 3 Det 165,000 314 3380 49Brett Vale
0
06/05/2011 IP7 7EG 3 Semi 180,000 86 926 194Brett Vale
08/04/2011 IP7 7NE 2 Det 153,500 187 2013 76Brett Vale £148
Hadleigh South
17/02/2012 IP7 5HP 2 Terr 160,000 105 1130 142Hadleigh South
13/02/2012 IP7 5HD 4 Det 250,000 112 1206 207Hadleigh South
16/12/2011 IP7 5AR 2 Terr 132,000 54 581 227Hadleigh South
07/11/2011 IP7 5AY 3 Semi 197,500 89 958 206Hadleigh South
0

Date Address Beds Type Sold £ Size sqm Size Sqft £psf Ward Ave Prices £psf
21/10/2011 IP7 5BA 3 Semi 195,000 104 1119 174Hadleigh South
22/09/2011 IP7 5HT 3 Terr 150,000 123 1324 113Hadleigh South
08/07/2011 IP7 5HT 3 Semi 160,000 83 893 179Hadleigh South
10/06/2011 IP7 5JB 4 Det 246,000 118 1270 194Hadleigh South
21/04/2011 IP7 5HD 4 Det 237,000 130 1399 169Hadleigh South £179
Date Address Beds Type Sold £ Size sqm Size Sqft £psf Ward Ave Prices £psf
Mid Samford
22/02/2012 CO7 6QF 3 Terr 173,000 47 506 342Mid Samford
10/02/2012 IP9 2EE 2 Det 202,000 232 2497 81Mid Samford
06/01/2012 CO7 6PS 4 Det 585,000 186 2002 292Mid Samford
19/12/2011 IP9 2HW 4 Det 240,000 131 1410 170Mid Samford
16/12/2011 CO7 6YQ 4 Det 320,000 138 1485 215Mid Samford
14/12/2011 IP7 2HS 2 Semi 155,000 127 1367 113Mid Samford
16/11/2011 IP9 2EA 2 Terr 240,000 72 775 310Mid Samford
23/09/2011 CO7 6LR 1 Terr 136,500 42 452 302Mid Samford
09/09/2011 CO7 6JS 5 Terr 250,000 350 3767 66Mid Samford
08/09/2011 IP9 2EE 2 Det 215,000 128 1378 156Mid Samford
01/09/2011 CO7 6JH 2 Semi 242,000 108 1163 208Mid Samford
26/08/2011 IP9 2HD 4 Det 285,000 150 1615 177Mid Samford
28/04/2011 CO7 6NW 2 Det 210,000 145 1561 135Mid Samford
15/04/2011 IP9 2JF 3 Terr 165,000 142 1528 108Mid Samford
15/04/2011 IP9 2EX 3 Semi 202,000 145 1561 129Mid Samford £187
Date Address Beds Type Sold £ Size sqm Size Sqft £psf Ward Ave Prices £psf
Waldingfield
07/02/2012 CO10 0RT 2 Det 205,000 86 926 221Waldingfield
20/01/2012 CO10 0BZ 3 Semi 150,000 65 700 214Waldingfield
19/12/2011 CO10 0XL 3 Det 178,000 118 1270 140Waldingfield
16/12/2011 CO10 0SP 3 Semi 233,000 153 1647 141Waldingfield
14/12/2011 CO10 0AQ 4 Det 385,000 160 1722 224Waldingfield
06/12/2011 CO10 0PS 4 Det 372,500 143 1539 242Waldingfield
02/12/2011 CO10 0BT 4 Det 247,000 151 1625 152Waldingfield
28/11/2011 CO10 0SP 4 Det 310,000 164 1765 176Waldingfield
25/11/2011 CO10 0BZ 2 Terr 133,000 88 947 140Waldingfield
14/11/2011 CO10 0SF 5 Semi 310,000 85 915 339Waldingfield

Date Address Beds Type Sold £ Size sqm Size Sqft £psf Ward Ave Prices £psf
07/11/2011 CO10 0RT 3 Terr 116,000 99 1066 109Waldingfield
27/10/2011 CO10 0RP 4 Det 417,500 178 1916 218Waldingfield
14/10/2011 CO10 0AF 5 Det 860,000 473 5091 169Waldingfield
04/08/2011 CO10 0TT 4 Det 450,000 275 2960 152Waldingfield
04/08/2011 CO10 0BU 2 Semi 134,000 117 1259 106Waldingfield
03/08/2011 CO10 0AW 2 Semi 130,000 102 1098 118Waldingfield
18/07/2011 CO10 0PN 4 Det 375,000 260 2799 134Waldingfield
02/06/2011 CO10 0BT 4 Det 232,000 124 1335 174Waldingfield
20/04/2011 CO10 0AH 3 Det 181,000 178 1916 94Waldingfield
14/04/2011 CO10 0FW 3 Det 170,000 111 1195 142Waldingfield £170
Date Address Beds Type Sold £ Size sqm Size Sqft £psf Ward Ave Prices £psf
Nayland
02/03/2012 CO6 4LJ 3 Terr 220,000 115 1238 178Nayland
03/12/2011 CO6 4HX 4 Det 1,280,000 341 3671 349Nayland
27/01/2012 CO6 4HT 4 Det 610,000 211 2271 269Nayland
20/01/2012 CO6 4JJ 3 Det 459,500 172 1851 248Nayland
09/01/2012 CO6 4QH 2 Terr 275,000 81 872 315Nayland
28/10/2011 CO6 4SA 4 Det 439,300 160 1722 255Nayland
10/10/2011 CO6 4SU 4 Det 895,000 117 1259 711Nayland
24/08/2011 CO6 4LB 3 Semi 165,000 130 1399 118Nayland
19/08/2011 CO4 5EW 2 Terr 153,500 74 797 193Nayland
11/08/2011 CO6 4LJ 3 Semi 235,000 167 1798 131Nayland
21/07/2011 CO6 4HT 3 Terr 399,500 103 1109 360Nayland
12/07/2011 CO6 4NU 3 Det 475,000 200 2153 221Nayland
08/07/2011 CO6 4LN 2 Semi 175,000 79 850 206Nayland
27/05/2011 CO6 4HX 3 Terr 205,000 67 721 284Nayland
12/05/2011 CO6 4LN 3 Semi 195,000 78 840 232Nayland
01/04/2011 CO4 5EW 2 Terr 137,000 68 732 187Nayland
01/04/2011 CO6 4HX 3 Semi 205,000 122 1313 156Nayland £260
Date Address Beds Type Sold £ Size sqm Size Sqft £psf Ward Ave Prices £psf
Glemsford & Stanstead
12/03/2012 CO10 7QD 4 Det 190,000 169 1819 104Glemsford & Stanstead
06/03/2012 CO10 7QW 3 Semi 140,000 92 990 141Glemsford & Stanstead
02/03/2012 CO10 7QX 3 Semi 160,000 121 1302 123Glemsford & Stanstead

Date Address Beds Type Sold £ Size sqm Size Sqft £psf Ward Ave Prices £psf
24/02/2012 CO10 7RP 3 Semi 296,000 94 1012 293Glemsford & Stanstead
20/01/2012 CO10 7UD 2 Semi 140,000 123 1324 106Glemsford & Stanstead
18/01/2012 CO10 7RE 5 Det 305,000 235 2530 121Glemsford & Stanstead
12/01/2012 CO10 7QD 4 Det 210,000 112 1206 174Glemsford & Stanstead
30/11/2011 CO10 7QH 4 Semi 178,000 94 1012 176Glemsford & Stanstead
04/11/2011 CO10 7RH 4 Det 270,000 259 2788 97Glemsford & Stanstead
27/09/2011 CO10 7QA 2 Terr 128,000 83 893 143Glemsford & Stanstead
19/09/2011 CO10 7SA 2 Det 125,000 52 560 223Glemsford & Stanstead
15/09/2011 CO10 7UE 3 Terr 178,000 93 1001 178Glemsford & Stanstead
31/08/2011 CO10 7RG 2 Semi 125,000 78 840 149Glemsford & Stanstead
30/08/2011 CO10 7PQ 3 Semi 137,000 101 1087 126Glemsford & Stanstead
26/11/2011 CO10 7PQ 2 Det 165,000 174 1873 88Glemsford & Stanstead
19/07/2011 CO10 7RE 3 Semi 87,000 94 1012 86Glemsford & Stanstead
08/07/2011 CO10 7QW 2 Semi 134,000 96 1033 130Glemsford & Stanstead
01/07/2011 CO10 7QX 1 Terr 88,950 48 517 172Glemsford & Stanstead
28/06/2011 CO10 7QX 2 Terr 100,000 48 517 194Glemsford & Stanstead
20/06/2011 CO10 7RX 2 Semi 117,500 81 872 135Glemsford & Stanstead
27/05/2011 CO10 7PH 2 Terr 135,000 60 646 209Glemsford & Stanstead
04/05/2011 CO10 1QA 4 Semi 273,000 147 1582 173Glemsford & Stanstead
12/04/2011 C09 0AW 3 Terr 120,000 91 980 123Glemsford & Stanstead £151
Date Address Beds Type Sold £ Size sqm Size Sqft £psf Ward Ave Prices £psf
Sudbury North
09/03/2012 CO10 0DH 2 Det 190,000 223 2400 79Sudbury North
27/02/2012 CO10 0DP 3 Semi 136,000 79 850 160Sudbury North
08/03/2012 CO10 0HX 3 Terr 160,000 103 1109 144Sudbury North
20/02/2012 CO10 0DG 3 Det 265,000 145 1561 170Sudbury North
20/02/2012 CO10 0JS 3 Det 345,000 230 2476 139Sudbury North
26/01/2012 CO10 0EH 3 Semi 355,000 118 1270 279Sudbury North
20/01/2012 CO10 0EL 3 Det 270,000 341 3671 74Sudbury North
06/01/2012 CO10 0JE 4 Det 350,000 265 2852 123Sudbury North
22/12/2011 CO10 0DD 4 Semi 190,000 119 1281 148Sudbury North
02/12/2011 CO10 0DG 3 Det 210,000 148 1593 132Sudbury North

Date Address Beds Type Sold £ Size sqm Size Sqft £psf Ward Ave Prices £psf
25/11/2011 CO10 0HA 3 Terr 163,000 88 947 172Sudbury North
21/11/2011 CO10 0HA 3 Semi 156,250 114 1227 127Sudbury North
26/08/2011 CO10 0HN 3 Semi 135,000 139 1496 90Sudbury North
24/08/2011 CO10 0DL 3 Semi 150,000 91 980 153Sudbury North
05/08/2011 CO10 0HF 3 Semi 156,000 86 926 169Sudbury North
25/07/2011 CO10 0DU 4 Semi 142,500 97 1044 136Sudbury North
22/07/2011 CO10 0DU 2 Semi 160,000 127 1367 117Sudbury North
04/07/2011 CO10 0DA 3 Semi 160,000 95 1023 156Sudbury North
01/07/2011 CO10 0DB 3 Semi 160,000 85 915 175Sudbury North £144
Date Address Beds Type Sold £ Size sqm Size Sqft £psf Ward Ave Prices £psf
Sudbury South
22/12/2011 CO10 0LG 2 Terr 98,000 93 1001 98Sudbury South
0
16/12/2011 CO10 0NF 2 Terr 112,000 71 764 147Sudbury South
16/12/2011 CO10 0JW 3 Terr 160,000 88 947 169Sudbury South
12/12/2011 CO10 0LD 3 Terr 110,000 92 990 111Sudbury South
09/12/2011 CO10 0NE 4 Semi 167,400 79 850 197Sudbury South
25/11/2011 CO10 0JY 3 Det 172,250 77 829 208Sudbury South
25/11/2011 CO10 0JY 3 Det 172,250 83 893 193Sudbury South
25/11/2011 CO10 0ND 3 Terr 155,000 123 1324 117Sudbury South
26/10/2011 CO10 0NH 2 Terr 107,000 76 818 131Sudbury South
14/10/2011 CO10 0NH 4 Semi 184,000 119 1281 144Sudbury South
30/09/2011 CO10 0LG 2 Terr 88,500 95 1023 87Sudbury South
19/09/2011 CO10 0QB 4 Semi 342,500 106 1141 300Sudbury South
02/09/2011 CO10 0JW 3 Terr 138,000 117 1259 110Sudbury South
31/08/2011 CO10 0JY 4 Det 200,000 130 1399 143Sudbury South
31/08/2011 CO10 0JX 4 Det 172,000 101 1087 158Sudbury South
28/08/2011 CO10 0JX 3 Terr 88,750 96 1033 86Sudbury South
24/08/2011 CO10 0LQ 2 Terr 117,000 60 646 181Sudbury South
12/08/2011 CO10 0NJ 3 Terr 125,000 105 1130 111Sudbury South
20/06/2011 CO10 0JQ 3 Det 200,000 157 1690 118Sudbury South
09/06/2011 CO10 0ER 4 Det 255,320 272 2928 87Sudbury South
03/06/2011 CO10 0LU 3 Semi 138,000 99 1066 130Sudbury South £144

Date Address Beds Type Sold £ Size sqm Size Sqft £psf Ward Ave Prices £psf Date Address Beds Type Sold £ Size sqm Size Sqft £psf Ward Ave Prices £psf
Sudbury East
16/03/2012 CO10 1FA 2 Semi 128,000 73 786 163Sudbury East
09/03/2012 CO10 1QW 3 Semi 190,000 107 1152 165Sudbury East
17/02/2012 CO10 1QX 3 Terr 90,000 83 893 101Sudbury East
15/02/2012 CO10 1QY 3 Terr 115,000 96 1033 111Sudbury East
27/01/2012 CO10 1WE 3 Det 177,000 113 1216 146Sudbury East
27/01/2012 CO10 1QT 2 Terr 115,000 79 850 135Sudbury East
27/01/2012 CO10 1WB 3 Semi 142,000 76 818 174Sudbury East
25/01/2012 CO10 1WQ 2 Terr 106,500 64 689 155Sudbury East
09/12/2011 CO10 1QN 4 Semi 165,000 111 1195 138Sudbury East
25/11/2011 CO10 1PW 3 Terr 100,000 97 1044 96Sudbury East
02/11/2011 CO10 1WB 2 Terr 119,000 64 689 173Sudbury East
27/09/2011 CO10 1QW 2 Semi 155,000 80 861 180Sudbury East
26/09/2011 CO10 1QW 3 Det 205,000 168 1808 113Sudbury East
19/09/2011 CO10 1QU 3 Terr 122,000 85 915 133Sudbury East
26/08/2011 CO10 1QU 3 Terr 119,995 81 872 138Sudbury East
05/08/2011 CO10 1QW 3 Semi 207,000 101 1087 190Sudbury East
05/08/2011 CO10 1WD 2 Semi 130,000 61 657 198Sudbury East
05/08/2011 CO10 1PX 4 Det 226,000 197 2121 107Sudbury East
05/08/2011 CO10 1PW 3 Terr 108,000 93 1001 108Sudbury East
29/07/2011 CO10 1WG 3 Terr 127,000 77 829 153Sudbury East
27/07/2011 CO10 1UA 3 Terr 175,000 94 1012 173Sudbury East
21/07/2011 CO10 1YZ 3 Terr 121,000 84 904 134Sudbury East
29/06/2011 CO10 1PS 3 Terr 159,000 76 818 194Sudbury East
24/06/2011 CO10 1QB 3 Terr 159,000 82 883 180Sudbury East
22/06/2011 CO10 1QX 2 Semi 115,000 86 926 124Sudbury East
22/06/2011 CO10 1QX 3 Terr 115,000 79 850 135Sudbury East
10/06/2011 CO10 1QT 3 Terr 94,500 98 1055 90Sudbury East
20/05/2011 CO10 1WA 3 Det 177,000 107 1152 154Sudbury East £145
Date Address Beds Type Sold £ Size sqm Size Sqft £psf Ward Ave Prices £psf
Long Melford
04/04/2012 CO10 9DE 4 Det 315,000 178 1,916 164Long Melford
30/03/2012 CO10 0AD 4 Det 408,000 207 2228 183Long Melford

Date Address Beds Type Sold £ Size sqm Size Sqft £psf Ward Ave Prices £psf
22/03/2012 CO10 9DA 4 Semi 430,000 114 1227 350Long Melford
09/03/2012 CO10 9DB 5 Det 775,000 424 4564 170Long Melford
10/02/2012 CO10 9HB 4 Det 310,000 137 1475 210Long Melford
13/01/2012 CO10 9EU 3 Semi 197,000 114 1227 161Long Melford
12/12/2011 CO10 9BS 3 Semi 205,000 125 1346 152Long Melford

11/11/2011 CO10 9EU 3 Semi 197,000 114 1227 161Long Melford
29/11/2011 CO10 9BX 4 Det 300,000 108 1163 258Long Melford
11/11/2011 CO10 9EE 3 Semi 137,000 103 1109 124Long Melford
07/11/2011 CO10 9DE 4 Det 235,000 110 1184 198Long Melford
27/10/2011 CO10 9EA 3 Semi 240,000 133 1432 168Long Melford
20/10/2011 CO10 9DE 4 Det 345,000 123 1324 261Long Melford
26/08/2011 CO10 9EA 3 Det 310,000 130 1399 222Long Melford
25/08/2011 CO10 9DL 2 Terr 245,000 99 1066 230Long Melford £200
Holbrook
30/03/2012 CM3 5ST 4 Semi 264,000 166 1787 148Holbrook
28/02/2012 CO10 5HU 4 Det 282,500 232 2497 113Holbrook
24/02/2012 CM11 2NG 3 Terr 196,500 106 1141 171Holbrook
03/02/2012 CO16 8TH 2 Semi 113,000 150 1615 70Holbrook
27/01/2012 CO16 8TH 2 Semi 98,500 134 1442 68Holbrook
12/12/2011 CV6 2FZ 3 Det 92,500 93 1001 92Holbrook
22/11/2011 CV6 2GQ 3 Terr 124,950 128 1378 91Holbrook
18/11/2011 CV6 2GE 3 Semi 161,500 102 1098 147Holbrook
28/10/2011 CV6 2GF 3 Terr 102,000 89 958 106Holbrook
20/10/2011 CV6 2GT 3 Semi 160,000 138 1485 108Holbrook
11/08/2011 CO10 5HU 4 Det 250,000 193 2077 120Holbrook £112
Date Address Beds Type Sold £ Size sqm Size Sqft £psf Ward Ave Prices £psf
Great Cornard South
16/03/2012 CO10 0JY 3 Det 165,000 86 926 178Great Cornard South
22/12/2011 CO10 0LG 2 Terr 98,000 93 1001 98Great Cornard South
16/12/2011 CO10 0NF 2 Terr 112,000 71 764 147Great Cornard South
16/12/2011 CO10 0JW 3 Terr 160,000 88 947 169Great Cornard South
12/12/2011 CO10 0LD 3 Terr 110,000 92 990 111Great Cornard South
09/12/2011 CO10 0NE 4 Semi 167,400 79 850 197Great Cornard South

Date Address Beds Type Sold £ Size sqm Size Sqft £psf Ward Ave Prices £psf
29/11/2011 CO10 0JY 3 Det 168,000 77 829 203Great Cornard South
25/11/2011 CO10 0JY 3 Det 172,250 83 893 193Great Cornard South
25/11/2011 CO10 0ND 3 Terr 155,000 123 1324 117Great Cornard South
30/09/2011 CO10 0LG 2 Terr 88,500 95 1023 87Great Cornard South £150

ppendices

Base Outputs of HCA
AWVM

Site detailsV2.0
April 2011
HCA AREA WIDE VIABILITY MODEL
Version 2.0 April 2011
Local Authority / AreasBabergh District Council
File ReferenceFile reference
Date / Author23 November 2011
SITE DETAILS Site details by Typology: Total units, Site area (excluding commercial), Total homes, Net to gross site area ratio
Typology descriptions and existing use type names should be entered on the Typologies, Mix… sheet Typology 1 (describe on Typologies sheet)
Small rural Infill 1-3 units
Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 Site 6 Site 7
A
Land area (ha) by existing use (excluding commercial) Totals
Unserviced Greenfield0.0
Serviced Greenfield0.0
Brownfield24.424.35
00.0
00.0
Net to gross site area ratio for residential site value Totals
Unserviced Greenfield-
Serviced Greenfield-
Brownfield90%90%
0-
0-
Net residential area for threshold values Totals
Unserviced Greenfield0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Serviced Greenfield0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Brownfield21.921.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
00.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
00.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Number of residential units for net development site Totals
Unserviced Greenfield0
Serviced Greenfield0
Brownfield653653
00
00
Site Names
Sales value bands – housing sub market (reference only)
Typology 2 (describe on Typologies sheet)
Rural>3 units greenfield
Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 Site 6 Site 7
B
Land area (ha) by existing use (excluding commercial) Totals
Unserviced Greenfield29.729.7
Serviced Greenfield0.0
Brownfield0.0
00.0
00.0
Net to gross site area ratio for residential site value Totals
Unserviced Greenfield70%70%
Serviced Greenfield-
Brownfield-
0-
0-
Net residential area for threshold values Totals
Unserviced Greenfield20.820.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Serviced Greenfield0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Brownfield0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
00.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
00.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Number of residential units for net development site Totals
Unserviced Greenfield753753
Serviced Greenfield0
Brownfield0
00
00
Typology 3 (describe on Typologies sheet)
Brownfield Infill
Site Names
Sales value bands – housing sub market
1 of 525/09/2012 PROTECT – COMMERCIAL

Site detailsV2.0
April 2011
HCA AREA WIDE VIABILITY MODEL
Version 2.0 April 2011
Local Authority / AreasBabergh District Council
File ReferenceFile reference
Date / Author23 November 2011
Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 Site 6 Site 7
C
Land area (ha) by existing use (excluding commercial) Totals
Unserviced Greenfield0.0
Serviced Greenfield0.0
Brownfield22.122.1
00.0
00.0
Net to gross site area ratio for residential site value Totals
Unserviced Greenfield-
Serviced Greenfield-
Brownfield90%90%
0-
0-
Net residential area for threshold values Totals
Unserviced Greenfield0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Serviced Greenfield0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Brownfield19.919.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
00.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
00.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Number of residential units for net development site Totals
Unserviced Greenfield0
Serviced Greenfield0
Brownfield976976
00
00
Typology 4 (describe on Typologies sheet)
Totals Urban Greenfield infill
Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 Site 6 Site 7
D
Sales value bands
housing sub market
Site Names
Sales value bands – housing sub market
Site Names
Land area (ha) by existing use (excluding commercial) Totals
Unserviced Greenfield50.750.73
Serviced Greenfield0.0
Brownfield0.0
00.0
00.0
Net to gross site area ratio for residential site value Totals
Unserviced Greenfield75%75%
Serviced Greenfield-
Brownfield-
0-
0-
Net residential area for threshold values Totals
Unserviced Greenfield38.038.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Serviced Greenfield0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Brownfield0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
00.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
00.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Number of residential units for net development site Totals
Unserviced Greenfield1,4761476
Serviced Greenfield0
Brownfield0
00
00 Typology 5 (describe on Typologies sheet)
Large Urban Extension
Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 Site 6 Site 7
E Sales

value

bands
–
housing

sub

market

Site Names
Sales value bands – housing sub market
2 of 525/09/2012 PROTECT – COMMERCIAL

Site detailsV2.0
April 2011
HCA AREA WIDE VIABILITY MODEL
Version 2.0 April 2011
Local Authority / AreasBabergh District Council
File ReferenceFile reference
Date / Author23 November 2011
Land area (ha) by existing use (excluding commercial) Totals
Unserviced Greenfield55.355.25
Serviced Greenfield0.0
Brownfield0.0
00.0
00.0
Net to gross site area ratio for residential site value Totals
Unserviced Greenfield75%75%
Serviced Greenfield-
Brownfield-
0-
0-
Net residential area for threshold values Totals
Unserviced Greenfield41.441.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Serviced Greenfield0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Brownfield0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
00.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
00.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Number of residential units for net development site Totals
Unserviced Greenfield2,1502150
Serviced Greenfield0
Brownfield0
00
00 Typology 6 (describe on Typologies sheet)
–
Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 Site 6 Site 7
Land area (ha) by existing use (excluding commercial) Totals
Unserviced Greenfield0.0
Serviced Greenfield0.0
Brownfield0.0
0
00
Site Names
Sales value bands – housing sub market
0
0
.
0
00.0
Net to gross site area ratio for residential site value Totals
Unserviced Greenfield-
Serviced Greenfield-
Brownfield-
0-
0-
Net residential area for threshold values Totals
Unserviced Greenfield0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Serviced Greenfield0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Brownfield0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
00.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
00.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Number of residential units for net development site Totals
Unserviced Greenfield0
Serviced Greenfield0
Brownfield0
00
00
Typology 7 (describe on Typologies sheet)
–
Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 Site 6 Site 7
Land area (ha) by existing use (excluding commercial) Totals
Unserviced Greenfield0.0
Serviced Greenfield0.0
Brownfield0.0
00.0
Site Names
Sales value bands – housing sub market
3 of 525/09/2012 PROTECT – COMMERCIAL

Site detailsV2.0
April 2011
HCA AREA WIDE VIABILITY MODEL
Version 2.0 April 2011
Local Authority / AreasBabergh District Council
File ReferenceFile reference
Date / Author23 November 2011
00.0
Net to gross site area ratio for residential site value Totals
Unserviced Greenfield-
Serviced Greenfield-
Brownfield-
0-
0-
Net residential area for threshold values Totals
Unserviced Greenfield0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Serviced Greenfield0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Brownfield0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
00.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
00.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Number of residential units for net development site Totals
Unserviced Greenfield0
Serviced Greenfield0
Brownfield0
00
00
Typology 8 (describe on Typologies sheet)
–
Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 Site 6 Site 7
Land area (ha) by existing use (excluding commercial) Totals
Unserviced Greenfield0.0
Serviced Greenfield0.0
Brownfield0.0
00.0
00.0
Net to gross site area ratio for residential site value Totals
Unserviced Greenfield-
Serviced Greenfield-
Brownfield
Site Names
Sales value bands – housing sub market
Brownfield
–
0-
0-
Net residential area for threshold values Totals
Unserviced Greenfield0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Serviced Greenfield0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Brownfield0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
00.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
00.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Number of residential units for net development site Totals
Unserviced Greenfield0
Serviced Greenfield0
Brownfield0
00
00
Typology 9 (describe on Typologies sheet)
–
Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 Site 6 Site 7
Land area (ha) by existing use (excluding commercial) Totals
Unserviced Greenfield0.0
Serviced Greenfield0.0
Brownfield0.0
00.0
00.0
Net to gross site area ratio for residential site value Totals
Unserviced Greenfield-
Serviced Greenfield-
Brownfield-
Sales value bands – housing sub market
Site Names
4 of 525/09/2012 PROTECT – COMMERCIAL

Site detailsV2.0
April 2011
HCA AREA WIDE VIABILITY MODEL
Version 2.0 April 2011
Local Authority / AreasBabergh District Council
File ReferenceFile reference
Date / Author23 November 2011
0-
0-
Net residential area for threshold values Totals
Unserviced Greenfield0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Serviced Greenfield0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Brownfield0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
00.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
00.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Number of residential units for net development site Totals
Unserviced Greenfield0
Serviced Greenfield0
Brownfield0
00
00
5 of 525/09/2012 PROTECT – COMMERCIAL

Typologies, Mix, Areas, Valuesv2.0
April 2011
HCA AREA WIDE VIABILITY MODEL
Version 2.0 April 2011Babergh District Council File reference 23 November 2011
TYPOLOGIES & LAND VALUES TYPOLOGY DESCRIPTIONS and dwelling numbersDWELLING MIX
enter percentage for each typology identified
No of dwellings1 bed flat 2 bed flat 3 bed flat 4 bed flat 2 bed house 3 bed house 4 bed + house Totals
653 0% 0% 0% 0% 15% 43% 42%100%OK
753 0% 8% 0% 0% 32% 39% 21%100%OK
976 8% 10% 1% 0% 30% 25% 26%100%OK
1,476 21% 25% 1% 0% 21% 24% 8%100%OK
2,150 8% 10% 1% 0% 30% 25% 26%100%OK
– 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%0%
– 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%0%
– 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%0%
– 0%
6,008
DWELLING SIZES
enter for each unit type (net sellable area) – square metres
1 bed flat 2 bed flat 3 bed flat 4 bed flat 2 bed house 3 bed house 4 bed + house
51.3 sqm 54.3 sqm 80.0 sqm 90.0 sqm 85.8 sqm 118.8 sqm 198.8 sqm
49.4 sqm 57.1 sqm 80.0 sqm 90.0 sqm 71.3 sqm 81.1 sqm 97.0 sqm
EXISTING USES, LAND AREAS & VALUES for threshold land value options
Unserviced Gree
n
Serviced Greenfie Brownfield Totals Density DPHm
2
per hectare
0.0 0.0 24.4 0.0 0.024.4 26.8 3,376
82211
29.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.029.7 25.4 2,677
79520
0.0 0.0 22.1 0.0 0.022.1 44.2 4,563
100841
50.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.050.7 29.1 2
,
344
118898
Apportionment of dwellings between typologies
Description
Small rural Infill 1-3 units
Rural>3 units greenfield
Brownfield Infill
Urban Greenfield infill
Large Urban Extension
Input Options: The number of dwellings and land areas assumed for each typology
can be built up from information on individual SHLAA sites on the Site Details
worksheet. Totals from the Site Details worksheet link to the number of dwellings
and site areas for each typology on this worksheet. Alternatively dwellings and land
area information can be entered directly onto this worksheet sheet as generic
typologies, by overwriting formulae linking to Site Details.
Total number of dwellings in programme
Houses (percent of dwellings)
Flats Houses
Flats (percent of dwellings)
Hectares per typology (gross site area)
Rural>3 units greenfield
Brownfield Infill
Urban Greenfield infill
Small rural Infill 1-3 units
Private
Affordable
1 of 225/09/2012 PROTECT – COMMERCIAL
50
.
7
0
.
0
0
.
0
0
.
0
0
.
0
50
.
7
29
.
1
2
,
344
118898
55.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.055.3 38.9 4,021
222140
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0
0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0
0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0
0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0
0
Unserviced Gree
n
Serviced Greenfie Brownfield – –
£0 £0 £0 £0 £0
Unserviced Gree
n
Serviced Greenfie Brownfield – –
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Small rural Infill 1-3 units
Large Urban Extension
Rural>3 units greenfield
–
–
Brownfield Infill
Urban Greenfield infill
Existing use values PER HECTARE (gross area)
Small rural Infill 1-3 units
–
Select Typology
on results page to
display m
2
hectare
–
–
Rural>3 units greenfield
–
Urban

Greenfield

infill
Large Urban Extension
–
–
Existing use value premium
Brownfield Infill
1 of 225/09/2012 PROTECT – COMMERCIAL

Typologies, Mix, Areas, Valuesv2.0
April 2011
Unserviced Gree
n
Serviced Greenfie Brownfield – – Totals Density DPHm
2
per hectare
0.0 0.0 21.9 0.0 0.021.9 29.8 3,751
20.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.020.8 36.2 3,825
0.0 0.0 19.9 0.0 0.019.9 49.1 5,070
38.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.038.0 38.8 3,125
41.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.041.4 51.9 5,361
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0
Unserviced Gree
n
Serviced Greenfie Brownfield – –
£0 £550,000 £0 £0
£400,000 £0 £0 £0 £0
£0 £0 £550,000 £0 £0
£400,000 £0 £0 £0 £0
£400,000 £0 £0 £0 £0
£0 £0 £0 £0 £0
£0 £0 £0 £0 £0
£0 £0 £0 £0 £0
£0 £0 £0 £0 £0
Unserviced Gree
n
Serviced Greenfie Brownfield – – Totals
£0 £0 £12,053,250 £0 £0 £12,053,250
£8,316,000 £0 £0 £0 £0 £8,316,000
£0 £0 £10,939,500 £0 £0 £10,939,500
Select Typology
on results page to
display m
2
hectare
–
Small rural Infill 1-3 units
Large Urban Extension
–
–
Urban Greenfield infill
Large Urban Extension
–
Net residential area for comparable Threshold Value
Total threshold values (Results sheet options selected)
Small rural Infill 1-3 units
Brownfield Infill
–
–
Urban Greenfield infill
Brownfield Infill
Large Urban Extension
Urban Greenfield infill
Rural>3 units greenfield
Brownfield Infill
–
–
Rural>3 units greenfield
–
Comparable value per hectare (net residential area)
Small rural Infill 1-3 units
Rural>3 units greenfield
–
–
–
2 of 225/09/2012 PROTECT – COMMERCIAL
£15,219,000 £0 £0 £0 £0 £15,219,000
£16,575,000 £0 £0 £0 £0 £16,575,000
£0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0
£0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0
£0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0
£0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0
Large Urban Extension
–
–
–
–
Urban Greenfield infill
2 of 225/09/2012 PROTECT – COMMERCIAL

Sales and Affordable Housing Valuesv2.0
April 2011
HCA AREA WIDE VIABILITY MODEL
Version 2.0 April 2011
Babergh District Council File reference 23 November 2011
SALES VALUES AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING CAPITAL VALUES V
ALUES for private sales
£m
2
Input blended rate from % total net sales area for flats & houses
CAPITALISED GROUND RENTS
Rate
% total area£m
2
sales% total area£m
2
sales5.50%Annual rent Value
V. High 0% £2,995 100% £2,852£2,852OK One bed £500£9,091
High 10% £2,554 90% £2,433£2,445OK Two beds £500£9,091
medium 10% £2,181 90% £2,077£2,088OK Three beds £525£9,545
Low 0% £1,865 100% £1,776£1,776OK Four beds £0£0
TYPOLOGIES

SUB

MARKETS

A
ll units in each typology must be allocated to submarket(s) in tabl
e
One bed £0£0
Two beds £0£0
Three beds £0£0
Four beds £0£0
Small rural Infill 1-3 units65348 277 232 96
Rural>3 units greenfield75333 293 311 116
Brownfield Infill9760 498 478 0
Urban Greenfield infill14760 360 1010 106
Large Urban Extension21500 250 1900 0
-0
-0
-0
-0
OK
AFFORDABLE
Distribution of dwellings by typologies and sub-market
No. of units V. High Typology
Housing Sub Markets
Blended Sales
Rate
PRIVATE Flats Houses
High medium Low
Option 2: Capital values calculated from net rents & yields
1 of 225/09/2012 PROTECT – COMMERCIAL
OK
Select affordable value option using the drop down box AFFORDABLE HOUSING CAPITAL VALUE
S
Price paid by Registered Provider to developer
OPTION 1 User calculated capital values per unit
Indicative HCA Funding input applies to both options
Dwelling Types
Capitalised rent
per unit
Indicative HCA
funding per unit
Total value per
unit
Capitalised rent
per unit
Indicative HCA
funding per unit
Total value per
unit Equity + rent
Indicative HCA
funding per unit
Total value per
unit
One bed flats £55,000 £0£55,000£50,325 £0£50,325£53,240 £0£53,240
Two bed flats £65,000£65,000£59,475£59,475£62,920£62,920
Three bed flats £0£0£0£0£0£0
Four bed flats £0£0£0£0£0£0
Two bed house £77,000£77,000£62,175£62,175£75,075£75,075
Three bed house £88,000£88,000£70,465£70,465£85,085£85,085
Four bed + house £115,000£115,000£91,190£91,190£110,110£110,110
Average nil grant capital value £m
2
£1,124 £937 £1,086
SHARED OWNERSHIP AFFORDABLE RENT SOCIAL RENT
Option 2: Capital values calculated from net rents & yields
1 of 225/09/2012 PROTECT – COMMERCIAL

Sales and Affordable Housing Valuesv2.0
April 2011
OPTION 2 Capital values for affordable housing calculated from net rents & yield assumptions Input Indicative HCA Funding into Option 1 Dwelling Types
Net Target rent
per annum Yield Capital value
Indicative HCA
unit funding
Total value per
unit
One bed flats £3,850 7.00%£55,000 £0 £55,000
Two bed flats £5,760 7.00%£82,286 £0 £82,286
Three bed flats £7,200 7.00%£102,857 £0 £102,857
Four bed flats £0 0.00%£0 £0 £0
Two bed house £6,000 7.00%£85,714 £0 £85,714
Three bed house £7,500 7.00%£107,143 £0 £107,143
Four bed + house £8,500 7.00%£121,429 £0 £121,429
Average nil grant capital value £m
2
£1,272
Dwelling Types
Net Target rent
per annum Yield Capital value
Indicative HCA
unit funding
Total value per
unit
One bed flats £0 0.00%£0 £0 £0
Two bed flats £0 0.00%£0 £0 £0
Three bed flats £0 0.00%£0 £0 £0
Four bed flats £0 0.00%£0 £0 £0
Two bed house £0 0.00%£0 £0 £0
Three bed house £0 0.00%£0 £0 £0
Four bed + house £0 0.00%£0 £0 £0
Average nil grant capital value £m
2
£0
SOCIAL RENT
AFFORDABLE RENT
2 of 225/09/2012 PROTECT – COMMERCIAL
Dwelling Types
Average market
value % of equity sold
Value of equity
sold
Rent pa as %
retained equity Rent per annum Yield
Capital value of
rent on retained
equity
Indicative HCA
funding per unit
Total value per
unit
One bed flats £125,000 25%£31,2502.75%£2,5786.00%£42,969 £0 £74,219
Two bed flats £145,000 25%£36,2502.75%£2,9916.00%£49,844 £0 £86,094
Three bed flats £160,000 25%£40,0002.75%£3,3006.00%£55,000 £0 £95,000
Four bed flats £0 0%£02.75%£06.00%£0 £0 £0
Two bed house £160,000 25%£40,0002.75%£3,3006.00%£55,000 £0 £95,000
Three bed house £210,000 25%£52,5002.75%£4,3316.00%£72,188 £0 £124,688
Four bed + house £240,000 25%£60,0002.75%£4,9506.00%£82,500 £0 £142,500
Average nil grant capital value £m
2
£1,417
SHARED OWNERSHIP
2 of 225/09/2012 PROTECT – COMMERCIAL

Costs, s106, CIL, Timings, Other costs, Inflationv 2.0
April 2011
HCA AREA WIDE VIABILITY MODEL
Version 2.0 April 2011Babergh District Council File reference 23 November 2011
COSTS AND TIMING
S
HOUSES
Typology
Flats £m2
gross avg
Gross/Net
floor area
ratio flats
Houses £ m2
net
Quarter Quarters Quarters
Quarters
from start
on site
£s per unit all
tenures
Quarter
paid
£m
2
private
sales only
Quarter
paid
Small rural Infill 1-3 units £94980%£795£795£100 1 80 803£6,200 1 £0 m2 0
Rural>3 units greenfield £94980%£795£770£100 1 80 803£6,200 1
Brownfield Infill £94980%£795£734£100 1 80 803£6,200 1
Urban Greenfield infill £94980%£795£605£100 1 80 803£8,500 1
Large Urban Extension £94980%£795£734£100 1 80 803£10,100 1
-£0
-£0
-£0
-£0
OTHER COSTS
17.00%
6.00%
5.00%
12.00%
3.00%
1.50%
5.00%
Additional Site
Infrastructure
£m2
Marketing costs % of private sales value
Design & Sustainability Standards factor % constrn. costs
Legal Fees % of private sales value
Site acquisition & stamp duty % gross residual land value
Note on Timings Costs
and Revenues will not be
included in the cash flow
unless quarter values are
entered for all timings
S106 payments CIL Charges
CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Base build plus site infrastructure costs (£m2 net sellable area)
Blended square meter rate for flats & houses based on net sellable areas
Professional Fees % of total construction costs
Developer return private – % of GDV private sales
Developers return affordable % affordable constrn. costs
Select Typology on results page
to see Blended Base Build costs
£m
2.
FLATS
Blended Base
Build costs
per m2 net
TIMINGS
for cash flow
PLANNING OBLIGATIONS / CIL
Build
start
Build
period
Sales
period
Sales
period
start
1 of 225/09/2012 PROTECT – COMMERCIAL
7.00%
INFLATION
and future costs of design & sustainability standards
Annual inflation
Annual sales
price inflation
%
Annual
Constrn. cost
inflation % (A)
Future
standards
cost uplift %
(B)
Total % (A+B)
Year 1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%0.0%
Year 2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%0.0%
Year 3 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%0.0%
Year 4 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%0.0%
Year 5 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%0.0%
Year 6 4.0% 3.0% 3.0%6.0%
Year 7 4.0% 3.0% 6.0%9.0%
Year 8 4.0% 3.0% 3.0%6.0%
Year 9 4.0% 3.0% 3.0%6.0%
Year 10 4.0% 3.0% 3.0%6.0%
Year 11 4.0% 3.0% 3.0%6.0%
Year 12 4.0% 3.0% 3.0%6.0%Can be used where development phases
represented by separate typologies
Total Constructiion Cost % Increase
Development Finance interest rate for cashflow
1 of 225/09/2012 PROTECT – COMMERCIAL

Costs, s106, CIL, Timings, Other costs, Inflationv 2.0
April 2011
Year 13 4.0% 3.0% 3.0%6.0%
Year 14 4.0% 3.0% 3.0%6.0%
Year 15 4.0% 3.0% 3.0%6.0%
Year 16 4.0% 3.0% 3.0%6.0%
Year 17 4.0% 3.0% 3.0%6.0%
Year 18 4.0% 3.0% 3.0%6.0%
Year 19 4.0% 3.0% 3.0%6.0%
Year 20 4.0% 3.0% 3.0%6.0%
Year 210.0%
Year 220.0%
Year 230.0%
2 of 225/09/2012 PROTECT – COMMERCIAL 2 of 225/09/2012 PROTECT – COMMERCIAL

Resultsv2.0
April 2011
HCA AREA WIDE VIABILITY MODEL
Version 2.0 April 2011Babergh District Council File reference 23 November 2011
RESULTS Values / Gap Aggregate residual land value (RLV)
£63,102,750
£0
Aggregate threshold land value (TLV)
£63,102,750
RLVs
RLV per
hectare
Funding gap / surplus (RLV-TLV)
-£0
Small rural Infill 1-3 units £0 £0 £12,053,250
-£12,053,250
653
S106 and CIL
Rural>3 units greenfield £0 £0 £8,316,000
-£8,316,000
753
Section 106 charges
£49,029,400
Brownfield Infill £0 £0 £10,939,500
-£10,939,500
976
S106 adjust +/- percentage
%
Urban Greenfield infill £0 £0 £15,219,000
-£15,219,000
1,476
Community Infrastructure Levy
£0
Large Urban Extension £0 £0 £16,575,000
-£16,575,000
2,150
CIL adjust +/- percentage
%
-£0 £0 £0
£0
–
HCA / other funding
-£0 £0 £0
£0
–
Indicative HCA / other funding-£0 £0 £0
£0
–
Total funding assumed
£0
-£0 £0 £0
£0
–
Affordable housing percentages
Total dwellings selected6008
Average dwelling area m2 100.47
EUV
EUV
p
lus prem
iu
m
Percenta
g
e affordable dwellin
g
s
35%
Comparable value
Dwellings
Threshold land values for
options selected in box
Residual Land Value Table
Note: RLVs above reflect the s106,
CIL and affordable housing
percentage set before the “Refresh
Residual Land Values” macro
populates the RLV table These
Check Select box to include Typology in results
Typologies
A
ffordable Housin
g
Value Sensitivit
y
Residual minus
Threshold
Apply grant
Select Select Select Select Select Select Select Select Select
EUV plus premium Comparable value EUV plus premium Comparable value EUV plus premium Comparable value EUV plus premium Comparable value EUV plus premium Comparable value EUV plus premium Comparable value EUV plus premium Comparable value EUV plus premium Comparable value EUV plus premium Comparable value
1 of 125/09/2012 PROTECT – COMMERCIAL
Percentage

affordable

dwellings

35%
Comparable

value
of which affordable rented homes
75%
Affordable Rent adjust +/- %
5%
of which social rented homes
0%
Social Rent adjust +/- %
%
of which shared ownership homes
25%
Shared Ownership adjust +/- %
5%
p
opu
la
t
es
th
e
RLV

t
a
bl
e.
Th
ese
values will not change if subsequently
the “Seek max AH” macro
calculates a different AH %, or s106 /
CIL is adjusted.
Affordable

Housing

Value

Sensitivity
1 of 125/09/2012 PROTECT – COMMERCIAL

East Bergholt Parish Council

East Bergholt Parish Council

Share This Story, Choose Your Platform!

East Bergholt
Parish Council