Sample site · Kingsfield Place, OX14 1AA is fictional; its comparable sales are real HM Land Registry records near the site point · Planning: planning.data.gov.uk · Build cost: stated for this sample — not checked against a benchmark · Read-only — build yours from a postcode →

Development Finance — Credit Pack

Kingsfield Place

Land off Ock Street, Abingdon · OX14 1AA

Vale of White Horse District Council

  • Built for development finance brokers — and the lenders they submit to.
  • Sourced evidence, not advice. Where we estimate, we label it and show the inputs.

Prepared by PlanSureAI

14 Jun 2026

10 residential units

Executive summary

Loan requested

£1,525,000

LTV (vs GDV)

47.7%

LTC (vs costs)

65.0%

Term

~18 months (estimated)

Exit route

Exit cover not assessed

GDV

£3,200,000

Total dev costs

£2,344,500

Profit on cost

33.1%

Profit on GDV

24.2%

Sample figures: profit excludes unstated land cost. LTC and equity are based on stated development costs excluding land and selling costs. CIL is undetermined, so full project costs and funding are not established.

Deal Summary
  • Planning:Full planning permission — granted Reference: PA/2024/01847. 3 pre-commencement conditions.
  • Viability:GDV £3,200,000, total development costs £2,344,500. Profit on cost: 33.1%. Residual land value: £135,500.
  • Exit:Watch: stated GDV per unit £320,000 is 11.1% below the median of 10 local comparables (§6). Exit cover not assessed (§6 under review). Completed value (GDV): £3,200,000.
  • Risks:S106/CIL: Section 106 (demo): £120,000 (affordable housing, education, highways / transport). CIL not calculated — charging schedule rates not loaded.
§1 · Site Overview
complete
SiteKingsfield Place
AddressLand off Ock Street, Abingdon
PostcodeOX14 1AA
LPAVale of White Horse District Council
Proposed units10 residential
Site boundaryNot defined — analysis based on postcode location

Source: Site record · As of: 14 Jun 2026 · Confidence: Illustrative (sample data)

§1b · Relevant authority & matters to confirm
complete
NationEnglandLocal planning authorityVale of White Horse District Council · E07000180Planning obligationsSection 106 agreement — Town and Country Planning Act 1990, section 106CILApplies in this nation where the council charges it. Amount not calculated by PlanSureAI — confirm with the council.

Automated evidence for this site

  • Retrieved for this site — Sold prices (HM Land Registry Price Paid Data) (covers England and Wales)
  • Not retrieved for this site — Planning appeal decisions (Planning Inspectorate) (covers England)
  • Not retrieved for this site — Statutory constraints (planning.data.gov.uk) (covers England)
  • Retrieved for this site — CIL charging status (covers England and Wales (CIL does not apply in Scotland or Northern Ireland))
  • Not retrieved for this site — Nearby planning applications (covers Selected councils only — the pack says where they are not held)

Matters requiring confirmation

  • Authority: Council planning register: not linked yet — PlanSureAI does not yet hold a checked register link for each authority. Use the council's website (via "Find the local council").
  • Planning permission: Confirm decision PA/2024/01847 and its conditions against Vale of White Horse District Council's planning register.
  • Planning obligations: Confirm any Section 106 agreement (Town and Country Planning Act 1990, section 106) — sums, triggers and indexation — with Vale of White Horse District Council.
  • CIL: Confirm whether CIL is payable, and any liability or relief, with Vale of White Horse District Council.
  • Statutory constraints: Not assessed for this site. Check designations (conservation area, listed buildings, flood risk, trees) with Vale of White Horse District Council.
  • Automated evidence: Planning appeal decisions (Planning Inspectorate): not retrieved for this site. Not evidence of absence.
  • Automated evidence: Statutory constraints (planning.data.gov.uk): not retrieved for this site. Not evidence of absence.
  • Automated evidence: Nearby planning applications: not retrieved for this site. Not evidence of absence.

Source: Site record (authority code from the postcode lookup) · official national sources · As of: — · Confidence: Stated by user

§2 · Planning Status
watch
DecisionFull planning permission — granted
ReferencePA/2024/01847
Nearby planning applicationsNearby planning history has not been checked for this fictional example.
Pre-commencement conditions3

Erection of 10 terraced houses with associated access, parking and landscaping. Fictional demo reference only.

Commencement risk3 pre-commencement condition(s) must be discharged before development can lawfully commence; confirm evidence requirements and timing with the LPA.

Pre-commencement conditions: 3

RefDescriptionStatusDischarged
PRE-01Submission and approval of Construction Management Plan (CMP)pending—
PRE-02Surface water drainage scheme approved by the LPApending—
PRE-03Archaeological watching brief agreed with Historic Environmentpending—

⚠ None of the pre-commencement conditions have been discharged. Confirm discharge status with LPA before drawdown.

Source: Planning annex (LPA / planning.data.gov.uk) · As of: 14 Jun 2026 · Confidence: Illustrative (sample data)

§2b · Statutory Constraints
watch

Not assessed — no confirmed site boundary. Statutory constraints are boundary-sensitive, and a postcode point can sit in a different field from the site.

Do not treat this as an absence of constraints. Conservation area, listed building setting, Article 4, TPO and flood zone are unchecked for this site. Adding a site boundary enables the check.

Source: planning.data.gov.uk (national flood, heritage and ecology checks) · As of: 14 Jun 2026 · Confidence: Illustrative (sample data)

§2c · Planning Risk Flags
indicative
Analysing planning history for risk flags…

Source: PlanSureAI anomaly detection engine · As of: — · Confidence: Indicative

§3 · S106 & Obligations
watch
SummaryS106 heads stated; CIL liability not determined (see below) — the combined total is not complete.
S106 (obligations annex)Section 106 (demo): £120,000 (affordable housing, education, highways / transport). CIL not calculated — charging schedule rates not loaded.
Illustrative S106 sumsThe S106 sums shown are illustrative figures for this fictional example, not agreed obligations.

Section 106

Head£
Affordable housing£52,000
Education£33,000
Highways / transport£35,000
Total S106 (stated sums)£120,000

Trigger points

  • Affordable housing: On commencement of development / prior to first occupation (demo wording).
  • Education: Prior to occupation of dwelling 5 or payment in lieu (demo).

Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)

CIL: Vale of White Horse District Council charges CIL. The amount has not been calculated by PlanSureAI; confirm it with the council.

Total planning obligations: Not stated

Statutory constraints not assessed — no site boundary. Utility provider not identified for this postcode area. Contact your local DNO, water company and gas transporter directly. This is generic postcode-level guidance, separate from the scheme's own stated utility connections (§4d).

Source: Site snapshot (S106 & constraints) · As of: 14 Jun 2026 · Confidence: Illustrative (sample data)

§4 · Viability Analysis
complete

GDV and costs as stated for this sample scheme — not a valuation, and not derived from the comparable sales in §6. Profit figures exclude unstated land cost. RLV is the residual available for land after stated development costs, £80,000 selling costs and the 20% profit target; it is not a land valuation. LTC and equity use stated development costs excluding land and selling costs; full project funding is not established. CIL remains undetermined.

§4b — Groundworks & abnormal cost exposure

Ground condition and abnormal cost exposure — indicative only. Confirm with ground investigation and QS before lender submission.

Ground condition classified as made ground. Estimated abnormal cost allowance: £85,000. Source: desk study.

GDV£3,200,000
Total development costs£2,344,500
RLV (residual)£135,500
Profit on cost33.1%
Net profit (after selling costs)£775,500
Profit on GDV24.2%
Gross development margin (GDV − dev costs − land) / GDV26.7%
Target developer margin on GDV (viability inputs)20.0%
Land cost— (not in viability inputs)
Total project cost (incl. land)— (add land cost to model)

Cost Breakdown · 10 units · 800 sqm NIA · sales value £4,000/sqm (assumed, used for GDV; not a build cost rate)

Line item£
Build cost
£1,500,000
Planning & professional
£45,000
S106 / CIL (appraisal input)
Sum of the three illustrative S106 contributions in §3 (affordable housing £52,000, education £33,000, highways / transport £35,000). CIL is not included: it remains undetermined.
£120,000
Finance
£220,000
Contingency
£85,000
Other
£206,000
Abnormal groundworks
£85,000
Finance cost (interest roll)
£65,000
BNG off-site credits
£18,500
Total£2,344,500

Outstanding evidence: illustrative inputs to verify

  • Finance £220,000 and interest roll £65,000: breakdown, and confirmation that the two do not overlap, required.
  • Contingency £85,000: calculation basis not evidenced.
  • Other costs £206,000: breakdown not provided.

Source: Viability inputs & snapshot · As of: 14 Jun 2026 · Confidence: Illustrative (sample data)

§4c · Contractor & Warranty
indicative

Contractor: Regional SME

Warranty: NHBC Buildmark — 10-year structural warranty

SSIP: Contractor holds SSIP accreditation

Most development finance lenders require NHBC Buildmark or equivalent approved warranty as a condition of the facility. Confirm warranty policy number before first drawdown.

Source: Site intake — contractor & warranty · As of: — · Confidence: Indicative

§4d · Utility & Infrastructure Connections
indicative
UtilityStatusAbnormal cost
ElectricityStandard—
WaterStandard—
GasNot required—
DrainagePublic sewer—

Total utility abnormal costs: not stated

All mains services stated at boundary per site record; heat pump specification means gas is not required. Formal connection offers and capacity checks have not been obtained — see the utility infrastructure caution above (§3).

Source: Site intake — utility connections · As of: — · Confidence: Indicative

§6 · Exit Strategy
indicative

Comparable sales (HM Land Registry)

Nearest 10 of 152 transactions within 1.2 km · median £360,000Implied unit value £320,000 (-11.1% vs median of 10 comparables · WATCH)
AddressPostcodeDatePriceTypeDistance
Terraced houseOX14 3QB2024-10-11£350,000Terraced0.2 km
Terraced houseOX14 3QA2026-02-24£307,500Terraced0.2 km
Terraced houseOX14 1EA2026-03-13£370,000Terraced0.2 km
Terraced houseOX14 1DA2025-10-17£370,000Terraced0.2 km
Terraced houseOX14 3HN2025-12-22£206,000Terraced0.2 km
Terraced houseOX14 5FP2026-05-26£385,000Terraced0.2 km
Terraced houseOX14 5BY2025-07-24£318,000Terraced0.3 km
Terraced houseOX14 3JB2026-04-02£421,500Terraced0.3 km
Terraced houseOX14 3JB2026-02-27£375,000Terraced0.3 km
Terraced houseOX14 5BZ2024-08-22£327,500Terraced0.3 km

Source: HM Land Registry PPD · 21.1-month achieved span (22 Aug 2024–26 May 2026); 24-month requested lookback

Local sales volume

Terraced resales within 1.2 km: 152, 14 Jun 2024 – 14 Jun 2026 (about 6 per month)

Source: HM Land Registry Price Paid Data. A count of past sales — not a forecast of how fast this scheme will sell.

Exit cover not assessed

The exit stress test is under review: it did not use the amount owed at exit, so its results are not shown. The comparable sales in this section are recorded HM Land Registry transactions — market evidence, not an exit assessment.

Completed value (GDV): £3,200,000

Source: Exit model (HM Land Registry comparables) · As of: 14 Jun 2026 · Confidence: Indicative

§8 · Sponsor & Borrower
complete
Name—
CompanyKingsfield Developments Ltd
Equity contribution (excludes land and selling costs)£819,500
Loan amount requested£1,525,000

Source: Demo intake · As of: 14 Jun 2026 · Confidence: Indicative

Download PDFRequest an evidence pack →

Example pack — read-only demo. Prepared by PlanSureAI.

Prepared by PlanSureAI

Kingsfield Place · OX14 1AA · 14 Jun 2026

This document is generated from published planning sources and user-provided inputs. It does not constitute legal, planning, or financial advice.

Integrity hash

Not issued — illustrative pack, no bundle was sealed.