🎯 Objective
To close the loopholes in viability assessments that allow developers to reduce or eliminate affordable housing obligations, delay delivery, or inflate costs and profits. VAP reasserts local authority control, mandates transparency, and ensures the public shares in development gains — not just in its risks.
💸 Policy V1 – Viability Benchmark Caps
What it does:
Sets national or local authority-approved upper limits for developer profit margins, land value assumptions, and cost baselines used in viability assessments.
Why it’s needed:
Developers often claim a scheme is “unviable” based on inflated expectations — particularly for land value or profit. This policy defines what is reasonable, making manipulation harder.
International Analogy:
Ireland’s Land Development Agency caps land valuation inputs to ensure affordable housing remains deliverable within realistic profit margins.
🚫 Policy V2 – No Post-Permission Renegotiation
What it does:
Prohibits developers from revising Section 106 (S106) obligations or affordable housing commitments after planning permission has been granted — except in rare, predefined, and fully transparent circumstances.
Why it’s needed:
This stops the “bait-and-switch” tactic where a generous proposal is used to secure permission, then renegotiated down once the land value rises.
International Analogy:
New York City’s Mandatory Inclusionary Housing model locks in affordable delivery expectations at approval stage.
🔁 Policy V3 – Profit Clawback Clause
What it does:
Requires developers to share any excess profits with the local authority if actual returns exceed what was forecast in their viability appraisal — even if all units are delivered.
Why it’s needed:
To ensure public benefit from successful schemes and to discourage deliberate underestimation of profits at submission stage.
International Analogy:
London’s mayoral development process includes a “review mechanism” to capture uplift in profit margins for public reinvestment.
🔍 Policy V4 – Mandatory Viability Transparency
What it does:
Requires the full publication of all viability assessments, assumptions, land purchase agreements, and financial modelling used to justify developer claims.
Why it’s needed:
To expose manipulation, empower scrutiny, and restore public trust. Currently, many viability assessments are shielded by “commercial confidentiality.”
International Analogy:
Toronto’s affordable housing approvals require full public disclosure of developer financial assumptions.
🧾 Policy V5 – Developer Conduct Registry
What it does:
Creates a centralised public register of developer behaviour, including:
- Renegotiation history
- Missed delivery obligations
- Legal or enforcement actions
This registry can be used in future viability tests, weighting the credibility of repeated “unviability” claims.
Why it’s needed:
To penalise serial abusers of the viability system and reward developers with consistent delivery records.
International Analogy:
The UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) publishes records of misconduct by regulated firms. This applies the same principle to planning actors.
📘 Summary
The Viability Abuse Prevention Portfolio (VAP) targets one of the planning system’s most damaging failure points: opaque, exploitable financial appraisals that strip out public benefit under the guise of viability. VAP restores discipline, credibility, and fairness by requiring developers to prove, not just claim, that they cannot deliver — and by making sure that when profits rise, so does public return.