Crookham Court developer says affordable housing not viable

Council to recommend that agreement be waived following rising costs

A developer hoping to begin a new chapter at the site of the notorious Crookham Court School has asked to pull out of an affordable housing deal.

The manor house has been boarded up since the boarding school closed in the 1980s after three teachers, including owner Philip Cadman, were jailed for sexually abusing pupils.

Plans to convert the house into an eight-bedroom home or office building and develop outbuildings in the grounds were approved by West Berkshire Council in 2014.

However, this came after councillors had deferred the application after the developer, Bridgewood plc, said it couldn’t afford a mitigation package to offset the impact of the development. This also included not paying a contribution to affordable housing elsewhere in the district.

Bridgewood later yielded to the council’s demands and agreed to pay £120,000 towards affordable housing, along with a mitigation package including contributions towards education, adult social care and public open space.

The developer said it was anxious to avoid delays as the house was rapidly deteriorating because of vandalism and theft.

Now, nearly two years later, Bridgewood has asked that it no longer has to pay the affordable housing sum, saying that the cost of restoring the house had risen, while the housing market and building costs had also changed.

Indeed, a council report said that the market value of the proposed houses has increased by around £1.5m, while the total cost of delivering the scheme has soared by more than £3m.

West Berkshire Council has recommended that the affordable housing agreement be removed, sending the contentious issue back to councillors at a meeting of its eastern area planning committee tonight (Wednesday).

The developer’s viability figures have been submitted in a commercially confidential rep-ort, but an independent viability consultant hired by the council, Dixon Searle, said it was satisfied that the scheme’s viability had worsened.

Government guidance suggests that adjustments, phasing, timing and the level of off-site affordable housing contributions could be considered.

“However, in light of the submitted information and advice from Dixon Searle, it is considered that there is insufficient scope to justify retaining any affordable housing contribution,” the council report said.

The council added that the viability of this scheme was affected disproportionately by the costs of refurbishing the main house.

“At a high level, the remainder of the scheme has potential to be viable without the Crookham House refurbishment cost burden affecting the overall viability outcome. The new-build scheme is effectively cross-subsidising the refurbishment at the expense of affordable housing contributions.”