Star date: 14th February 2019

136 FLATS AND HOUSES FOR PRIVATE RENT ON VITA WORKS SITE WITH NONE AFFORDABLE

Countryside Properties has submitted plans for 136 units of houses and apartments off Seaford Road in Charlestown, and is not proposing to provide any affordable housing, despite Salford City Council policy stating that 20% should be affordable.

The get out, as usual, is a 'viability' assessment, plus the Government's Vacant Building Credit, as the development is to be built on the site of the old British Vita Works. Countryside is also stating that it is "not able to support the full requirement of Section 106 contributions as it would render the delivery of housing on the site unviable".

Full details here...

A plan has been submitted by Countryside Properties to Salford City Council to build 136 private rent units on the old site of British Vita Works, off Seaford Road in Charlestown.

There will be 16 one bedroom apartments, 48 two bedroom apartments and 72 two and three bedroom houses, with none affordable despite the site being in a mid/high area of the city which Council policy states should be subject to 20% affordable housing.

"The submitted Viability Appraisal demonstrates that when Vacant Building Credit is applied and all development costs are taken in to account, no affordable housing is to be provided as part of the scheme" states Countryside in its application.

Vacant Building Credit was part of Government policy to enable more development on brown field sites, and applies to vacant buildings being brought back into use, or demolished for housing. The policy has been slated as yet another loophole for developers.

If the floorspace of the new development exceeds the old floorspace, developers only have to provide contributions on the extra area, as a 'financial credit equivalent to the existing gross floorspace of relevant vacant buildings' is applied. This development's floorspace is actually smaller than the old buildings, so no affordable housing is required.

Neither is Countryside proposing to pay its full planning contributions..."The submitted Viability Appraisal demonstrates that the site has marginal viability and is not able to support the full requirement of Section 106 contributions as it would render the delivery of housing on the site unviable", the company states.

The 'viability assessment' is not publicly available on the Council's planning portal, despite it promising more transparency. And this appears like another huge housing development giving little back to the city...