The council believed the scheme could deliver a policy-compliant provision of 30% of the dwellings as affordable accommodation, which was reaffirmed by the council’s viability consultant.
However, the site had many physical challenges and costs that were not in a typical development or accounted for in a viability assessment. It has steep topography and the need for large cut and fill areas. These are all constraints with having a sloping site, and the work involved in building houses into the landscape.
Our job was to prove to the council that the costs put forward were robust and justified for a departure from policy, as the costs were higher than envisaged.