Hello, Can anyone help me please. I am new to this website so please forgive me if this matter has already been discussed earlier/elsewhere. The recent Shinfield appeal decision (ref APP/X0360/A/12/2179141), seems to depart from earler appeal decsions with regard to affordable housing provision and viability calculations. In particular, it recommends that 50% of any uplift in land value (from Current Use Value to Residual Land Value) arising from development should be passed to the landowner to provide a competitive return to enabe the site to be brought forward for development. The practical outcome of this decision was that instead of securing 40% affordable housing (as requested by the LPA), only 2% was agreed by the Inspector. Given this: (i) Is anybody aware of post-NPPF planning appeals which support or contradict this stance? (ii) has anybody faced arguments from the development industry that this appeal decision should be the benchmark for affordable housing viability calaculations? and (iii) is this a sign of what is to come in terms of seeting a precedent, or (with respect!) a 'maverick' inspector's decision? Look forward to receiving any comments/etc. Many thanks Alan
