Decision Rationale and Viability Testing for Dollis Valley Phases 4 & 5 (Cabinet Item 11, Feb 2026)
Received: 11 March 2026
I am requesting information regarding the decision-making process for the Dollis Valley Regeneration Phases 4 & 5 Update, as presented in Agenda Item 11 of the Cabinet Meeting held in February 2026.The original Hybrid Planning Permission (B/00354/13) and the associated Section 106 Agreement were granted on the explicit basis that the development would "re-balance the general area to create a mixed and balanced approach to housing tenure" and "reduce the predominance of affordable housing in the locality". The 2013 Planning Report stated this diversification was a primary objective of the regeneration.As the February 2026 decision fundamentally reverses these core planning justifications by approving next steps required for flipping the final 221 units to 100% social and affordable rent (subject to business case and diligence), I request the following:1. Latest unredacted viability tests for Phases 4 & 5: the 'Updated Phase Viability Test') used to the support the Agenda Item 25 presented to the Cabinet on 24th February 2026;2. Latest unredacted Minimum Council Land Value for Phases 4 & 53. Options Testing & Alternative Models: a) Unredacted details of all options considered (having noted the non-exhaustive 'basket of options' at clause 2.4 of Schedule 30 of the Regeneration Agreement) by the Barnet Council and the Partner (i.e. Vistry (through the counterparty to the RA, Countryside Properties (UK) Limited)) when conducting the Updated Phase Viability Test and leading to the conclusion that 'the proposed 221 social rent scheme is currently the only viable delivery route' (as presented to the Cabinet of 24th February 2026).b) To the extent not already included in response to a), evidence of whether the council formally tested alternative routes as listed in Appendix A4. GLA Additionality Correspondence: a) Correspondence between Barnet Council and the Greater London Authority (GLA) regarding the "additionality" required to unlock grant funding. Please include any specific GLA stipulations that indicated a 100% flip was the prerequisite for funding under the Affordable Homes Programme 2021-2026.b) Intermediate tenure uplift: Considerations made to increasing shared ownership or key worker housing to meet the GLA's additionality criteria while still maintaining a more varied socio-economic mix.c) Exact number of units of shared ownership or key worker houses vs. social rent houses as made in the GLA application submitted recently?5. Expediency vs. Planning Strategy: a) Any internal briefing notes or risk assessments that weighed the "urgent rehousing need" (due to conditions in Mill Bridge and Garrowsfield) against the long-term Section 106 and Masterplan commitments to a mixed-tenure community. Specifically, recent assessment on validity of the expediency, given residents of the tower blocks were already decanted.Appendix A - Alternative Models Considered to preserve a mixed tenure for phases 4&5 instead of a 100% Social Rent Flip1. The Accelerated Funding Route (AFR): Using partial grant funding for affordable homes above first 20% of project (i.e., 51 homes over the 20% threshold of the origin2. The London Estate Regeneration Fund (LERF): Seeking capital to bridge the reported viability gap without total tenure change.3. 'Obsolete Homes' exemption: Given 2024 surveys found severe damp and mould in Mill Bridge and Garrowsfield blocks, did the council explore applying exceptional grant based on obsolescence, allowing the GLA to potentially fund the 95 replacement affordable units directly?4. Alternative Partners: Documentation of any formal attempts to secure a Registered Provider other than L&Q following their withdrawal of interest.
Outcome / Documents
- Response (some exempt) - application/pdf - Download