Meeting the RICS professional statement on viability
The RICS professional statement on financial viability makes objectivity a mandatory requirement, not an aspiration. Assessments that read as advocacy get rejected before the numbers are tested.
RICS viability assessment compliance turns on one idea: the person preparing the assessment owes a duty of objectivity that survives the fact that a developer is paying for it. The professional statement on financial viability in planning sets mandatory requirements for RICS members and regulated firms covering conduct, disclosure and reporting, and an assessment that does not carry the required declarations is open to being disregarded before anyone argues about land value.
Councils have learned to look for those declarations first. It is a quick way to sort submissions worth reviewing from submissions worth returning.
What the professional statement requires
The statement applies to members and regulated firms preparing financial viability assessments in planning, at plan-making or decision-taking stage. Its requirements sit alongside, rather than instead of, national planning guidance on viability.
The recurring obligations are:
- Act with objectivity, impartially and without interference, and use all appropriate available sources of information.
- Identify the client, the instructing party and the purpose of the assessment in the report.
- Record terms of engagement before starting.
- Disclose any conflict of interest, past or present, including previous involvement with the site or the parties.
- State the assumptions and inputs used, and where each came from.
- Include a statement that the assessment complies with the professional statement.
- Prepare the report on the basis that it may be made public.
None of that is onerous. What it does is make the basis of the assessment visible, which is precisely what a council's reviewer needs if they are to engage with it rather than reject it.
The practitioner competence point sits underneath all of this, and is covered further in viability assessment competence and RICS standards.
Declarations a compliant assessment carries
Put the declarations at the front, not in an appendix. A reviewer reading the first three pages should be able to establish who instructed the work, on what terms, whether any conflict exists, what standards apply and whether the author is prepared to stand behind the objectivity requirement.
The compliance statement should be specific. A sentence saying the report has been prepared in accordance with the professional statement, naming it, is worth more than a generic reference to professional standards. Where a formal valuation is included, the valuation standards that apply to it should be identified separately, because valuation and viability assessment are different exercises with different rules.
Conflicts deserve more than a box tick. Prior involvement in the land acquisition, an existing relationship with the landowner, a fee structure contingent on the planning outcome, or previous work advising the same authority on a related site should all be disclosed. A conflict disclosed at the outset is usually manageable. The same conflict discovered by the council's reviewer is fatal to the report's weight.
Objectivity where the client is the developer
There is no requirement for the assessor to be independent of the applicant, and nobody pretends the developer is not paying. The requirement is that the analysis is not shaped to produce a predetermined answer.
In practice that distinction shows up in four places.
Input selection. Where a range is available for a cost or a value, has the assessor taken the range or the end of it that suits the conclusion.
Sensitivity. A compliant assessment tests the conclusion against plausible variation in the main inputs. One that presents a single answer invites the reviewer to run their own sensitivity and find the point where the scheme becomes viable.
Treatment of the applicant's own figures. A developer's appraisal is evidence, not an input to be adopted without interrogation. The assessor should say what they checked and what they accepted on instruction.
And disclosure of unhelpful information. If a recent sale of the site, or an earlier appraisal, points the other way, it goes in the report. Omitting it is the thing that destroys credibility if the reviewer finds it.
Inputs the authority will test
The council's reviewer will go to the same places every time.
Benchmark land value is the first and largest argument. National guidance points to existing use value plus a premium to the landowner, rather than to a price actually paid that assumed a policy non-compliant scheme. An assessment built on the purchase price will be challenged, and the fact that the site was overpaid for is not a reason to reduce affordable housing.
Gross development value, tested against comparable evidence in the locality, with the assumptions on sales rates and phasing stated.
Build costs, usually benchmarked against a recognised cost dataset, with abnormals itemised and evidenced rather than included as a round sum percentage.
Developer return, where national guidance indicates that a return of 15 to 20 per cent of gross development value may be considered suitable for market housing, with a lower figure often appropriate for affordable housing given the reduced risk. Departures from that range need explaining.
Finance, professional fees, marketing, contingency and the treatment of obligations and levy liability, each of which should be traceable to a source.
Where affordable housing is in issue, the assessment has to interact with the Affordable Housing Statement rather than contradict it, and both should use the same unit mix and floor areas.
Review by the authority's own consultant
Most authorities instruct an independent reviewer, and most recharge the cost to the applicant through a planning performance agreement or as a condition of accepting the assessment.
Three things make that review go faster and cost less.
Send the appraisal model, not only the report. A locked summary table forces the reviewer to rebuild the model, which they will charge for and which introduces differences that then have to be reconciled.
Provide the evidence behind the inputs at the same time, as an appendix: the comparables, the cost plan, the finance terms. A reviewer chasing evidence is a reviewer writing a critical report.
And agree the scope of review in advance, including which inputs are agreed and which are in dispute. Narrowing the argument to two or three inputs before the review starts is the single most effective way of reaching an agreed position.
Publication and confidentiality
National guidance is clear that viability assessments should be prepared on the basis that they will be made publicly available, other than in rare and justified circumstances, and that any commercially sensitive information should be kept to a minimum.
Write the report accordingly. Anything you would not want published should either not be in it or should be in a separate confidential annex with a stated reason. Expect the council to resist wholesale redaction, and expect a request for the full document under information access rules if it is withheld.
The practical consequence is that a viability assessment is a document your competitors, your landowner and any objector may read. Assessments written for internal consumption and then submitted rarely survive that exposure.
Briefing to avoid a rejected assessment
The brief you give shapes the report you get. Six points worth putting in writing when instructing:
- Confirm the assessment is to comply with the professional statement, and require the compliance and objectivity statements in the report.
- Require terms of engagement and a conflict check before work starts.
- Ask for the appraisal model and the evidence appendix as deliverables.
- Specify sensitivity testing on benchmark land value, sales values, build costs and return.
- Require the report to be drafted for publication, with any confidential material separated and justified.
- Agree an allowance for responding to the authority's reviewer and, if needed, for attending a meeting to narrow the issues.
A Viability Assessment drafted without those instructions tends to arrive as advocacy, and advocacy is exactly what the professional statement was written to prevent. Councils usually expect a suitably qualified author, and professional review is strongly advised before submission. If you need a second opinion before the report goes in, the professional review route is one way to get one.
The wider question of what qualifies someone to sign off technical evidence in planning, where no statutory definition exists, is dealt with in competent person in planning legislation.
This is general guidance, not legal advice. Check the position with your local planning authority or a qualified professional before relying on it. PlanScope provides AI-assisted draft reports for planning applications. Reports should be reviewed before submission. We do not guarantee planning approval. For specialist technical reports, qualified professional input may be required.
Frequently asked questions
Does the RICS professional statement apply to every viability assessment?
It applies to RICS members and regulated firms preparing financial viability assessments in planning, at both plan-making and decision-taking stages. A non-member is not bound by it, but councils increasingly expect assessments to follow it anyway, and an assessment that does not carry the objectivity and disclosure statements is easier for a reviewer to set aside.
Can the assessor act for the developer and still be objective?
Yes. Independence from the applicant is not required, and it is normal for the developer to instruct and pay. What is required is that the analysis is not shaped towards a predetermined answer: inputs selected from evidence rather than convenience, sensitivity testing carried out, and unhelpful information disclosed rather than omitted.
Is the price I paid for the site the benchmark land value?
No. National guidance points to existing use value plus a premium to the landowner, not to a price that assumed a policy non-compliant scheme. Paying too much for land is not a reason to reduce affordable housing or obligations, and an assessment built on the purchase price will be challenged by the authority's reviewer.
What developer return will a council accept?
National guidance indicates that a return of 15 to 20 per cent of gross development value may be considered suitable for market housing, with a lower figure often appropriate for affordable housing because the risk is lower. Departures from that range are possible but need to be explained and evidenced rather than asserted.
Will my viability assessment be published?
Assume so. National guidance says assessments should be prepared on the basis that they will be made publicly available other than in exceptional circumstances, with commercially sensitive material kept to a minimum. Put commercially sensitive material in a separate annex with a stated justification rather than redacting the main report.
Sources and further reading
This article is general guidance about the planning system in England and, where stated, the rest of the UK. It is not legal or professional advice. Check your local planning authority’s validation requirements and take professional advice for your specific site.