Large Scale Development – the lessons of experience

Kevin McGeough, RESi 14, Manchester

February 2014
Defining Large Scale Development
Types of LSD

 Sustainable place making at scale
o Comprehensively planned, rather than ...
Examples of large scale development

City / sub-regional
Over 50,000 homes
Town
Over 10,000 homes
Village / District
Over ...
A History of Large scale development in the UK

Timeline

1785
1850
1920

1946
1964
1965
1967

1992
1997
1999
2000

2000
2...
Summary Case Study,
Project Profile
• Location South of the Old town
• Context
Greenfield site next to old city
• Rational...
Learning from Garden Cities
What is unique about Garden City Concept:
 How it is planned (physical form)
 Mode of Creati...
Learning from Garden Cities
Mode of Creation (approach to delivery)
•

“an ideal community that could appropriate for
itse...
Summary Case Study,
Project Profile
•
•
•
•
•

Location 20 miles north of London on A1
Context
Distinct new settlement for...
Summary Case Study,

Welwyn Garden City
•

Success factors

WGC offers a very high quality of life, including access to an...
Learning from the New Towns
•The New Towns programme grew directly out
of the Garden City movement, with 32 created
in the...
Estimated housing construction rates in the new towns over the decades from 1951 to
2011 showing period of intense growth ...
Population growth and quality of retail offer:

smaller new towns with generally limited offer/performance;
a number of me...
Learning from the New Towns
Are New towns Successful?

Lessons
– in comparison to what?

•By 1991 growth in New Towns (NTs...
Learning from our legacy,
Project Profile
• Location 30 ha site - SE corner of Greenwich Peninsula
• Context
Regeneration ...
Learning from our legacy,

GMV


Success factors

Excellent school and health facilities provided at the
beginning of con...
Learning from our legacy,
Project Profile
• Location SW edge of Northampton
• Context
Latest NT neighbourhood 44ha
• Ratio...
Learning from our legacy,

Upton, Northampton
Success factors
 Consistently delivers a very high quality of development
o...
Learning from our legacy,
Project Profile
• Location 6 miles SE of Leeds
• Context
Brownfield regen of coal mining village...
Learning from our legacy

Allerton Bywater
Success factors
•

First B4Life winning scheme in Yorkshire

•

Despite low val...
Informing the future of LSD
Informing the future
Garden
Cities?

Investment in
Rented sector

LIF £474m +
£1 bn

Unlocking
Development

GBB £570m

Sup...
CASE STUDIES

SUMMARY ANALYSIS

Project

Procurement Approach

Infrastructure
provision

Proposed
no. of
homes

Year
start...
CASE STUDIES
Project

SUMMARY ANALYSIS
Procurement approach

Infrastructure
provision

Proposed
no. of
homes

Year
started...
Financing Large Scale Development

1.

Creating new places requires investment in infrastructure and facilities, including...
2.

Delivery options and Land ownership

Multiple or fragments ownerships are highly likely to frustrate and distort the d...
Location and Connections

3.

Having development in the right place with connections to surrounding places is the foundati...
Quality and Design‘

4.

In a nutshell, because we don’t build beautifully, people don’t let us build much. And because we...
Executive Summary
 The UK has led world-class innovations in large scale place-making for centuries, resulting in
some of...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Place RESI 2014: Kevin McGeough, Homes & Communities Agency

730 views

Published on

Published in: Real Estate, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
730
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
5
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
23
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Place RESI 2014: Kevin McGeough, Homes & Communities Agency

  1. 1. Large Scale Development – the lessons of experience Kevin McGeough, RESi 14, Manchester February 2014
  2. 2. Defining Large Scale Development Types of LSD  Sustainable place making at scale o Comprehensively planned, rather than organic o Strategically led to deliver an agreed Vision o Focus on creating a distinct Place, not just housing. We can either condemn ourselves to haphazard urban sprawl – the surest way to damage the countryside. We can cram ever more people into existing settlements, concreting over gardens and parks – and bear in mind we already build the smallest home in Western Europe. Or we can build places people want to live. Places which draw on the best of British architecture and design, which have their own identity and character. Nick Clegg, deputy Prime Minister Garden City Sustainable Urban Extension Eco-town Millennium Community Garden Suburb Urban Village Garden Village Sustainable Urban Neighborhood Locally-planned large scale development (LPLSD) Sustainable Suburbia New Town Eco-region Large scale sites
  3. 3. Examples of large scale development City / sub-regional Over 50,000 homes Town Over 10,000 homes Village / District Over 2,500 homes Crawley, Stevenage, Runcorn, Skelmersdale, Welwyn Garden City, Letchworth, Peterlee, Newton Aycliffe, Edinburgh NT, Liverpool/Wirral Waters, Barking Riverside (TG), Greenwich Peninsula, Hammarby (Stockholm), Adamstown (Dublin), Neighborhood Over 500, homes Places are in descending order of size Port Marine 3500 New Hall 2600
  4. 4. A History of Large scale development in the UK Timeline 1785 1850 1920 1946 1964 1965 1967 1992 1997 1999 2000 2000 2012
  5. 5. Summary Case Study, Project Profile • Location South of the Old town • Context Greenfield site next to old city • Rationale New high quality environment designed to stimulate economic growth, raise profile of city, retain middle classes and attract absentee noblemen. • Description Municipally sponsored suburb • Place Promoter City of Edinburgh fathers (LA) • Land ownership Land purchased by LA • Delivery Method infrastructure by LA, plots sold to individuals or developers to build to strict guidelines • Development programme 5 phases over an 70 year period (1770 – 1840) Ph 1 50yrs, Ph 2 30 yrs Design Features • International design competition • The high quality of the architecture, set standards for Scotland and beyond, and exerted a major influence on the development of urban architecture and town planning throughout Europe Success factors • Largest planned city development in the world in 18th Century • Outstanding success in bringing cultural and commercial dynamism – flexible over time • Unesco World Heritage sit • Highest quality of life in UK • “Town planning at its boldest and most inspired” Key lessons • LA investment in infrastructure was effectively a subsidy to the middle classes however attracted the largest concentration of middle classes in Scotland, and created one of the most sustainable neighbourhoods in the world • Form and quality of development was controlled through feudal conditions and helped raise confidence . • LA offered incentives of £20 to first builders • High ceilings and flexible layouts of buildings have allowed them to be used flexibly for various functions over time. 10% green space • Edinburgh New Town reference
  6. 6. Learning from Garden Cities What is unique about Garden City Concept:  How it is planned (physical form)  Mode of Creation (approach to delivery) Principles of Garden City (physical form)  Marriage of the best of town an country  Dispersal of population into Garden Cities to release pressure on urban land values  Small scale – yet big enough to offer range of facilities – subsidised in each neighbourhood  Zoning of homes and industry  Circular in form – 6 neighbourhoods  Dense – walking scale settlement  Population of 32,000, 400 hectares  Middle of countryside, outside the sphere of any existing city
  7. 7. Learning from Garden Cities Mode of Creation (approach to delivery) • “an ideal community that could appropriate for itself land values it created by its own existence and effort” • Leasehold Tenure  Purchase of land at depressed agricultural values through mortgage debentures @ 4 % interest – raised from external investors.  As City is constructed land values rise, – control of land value vested in community  Rental values will continue to rise regularly – after 30 years debt (mortgage) repaid.  Future rental returns will then be invested in perpetuity in the community to provide additional social infrastructure and welfare – no local taxation required.
  8. 8. Summary Case Study, Project Profile • • • • • Location 20 miles north of London on A1 Context Distinct new settlement for up to 40,000 people Rationale 2nd garden city, building on Letchworth experience Description To GC principles – town for up to 40,000 people. Place Promoter Welwyn Garden City Ltd (WGCL), Ebenezer Howard, later Welwyn Garden City Development Corporation (WGCDC) • Land ownership WGCL purchased at depressed agricultural values. • Delivery Method Initially delivered in line with Garden City principles – shares prospectus launched 1920 to raise £250k at max 7% return. Later phases WGCDC with Treasury loans. • Development programme 2 phases of growth – as private sector led Garden City (1920-39) as a designated New Town (1946–66) once target population Design Features achieved – stoppedpassed to CNT. • Built to garden city principles incorporating new ideas such as routes for cars – along broad treelined boulevards, lined with housing. • Central Mall (Parkway) 1 mile long as orientating element. • Town centre and housing built on neo-Georgian / Arts and Crafts style. • Separation of housing and employment uses. reference Welwyn Garden City
  9. 9. Summary Case Study, Welwyn Garden City • Success factors WGC offers a very high quality of life, including access to an excellent range of high order local facilities and services. Welwyn Stores, taken over by John Lewis (1984), contribute to a higher level offer than other towns of similar size. • A good range of medium and higher level job opportunities have been maintained within the town, attracted by high quality and variety of housing available • Values in WGC are higher than local comparators, in part due to attractiveness of environment delivered and maintained • WGC continues to evolve successfully – new developments such as Sainsbury’s and Howard centre have fitted into the framework whilst offering a contemporary building solution Key lessons • • Keeping a single architect over-seeing development for 40 years has resulted in exceptional quality and continuity. • reference Much of the social value envisaged for the city was not delivered due to a perceived incompatibility of community values and investment expectations - early investment during the war and 30’s recession was difficult to secure. WGC is the only new town of comparable scale that has achieved a high quality of life and good variety of services – this could in part be due to location or its physical appearance based on traditional places rather than car orientated development.
  10. 10. Learning from the New Towns •The New Towns programme grew directly out of the Garden City movement, with 32 created in the UK from 1946. • The 1946 New Towns Act gave Government powers to designate areas of land for new town development. • Government appointed public “Development Corporations” for each town, supplied most of the necessary finance and closely scrutinised their work and spending decisions. • Development Corporations had powers to acquire, own, manage and dispose of land and property, undertake building operation, provide public utilities and generally do anything necessary to develop the New Town. • The Corporations had exceptionally favourable arrangements for land purchase at existing (or close to existing) use values. Background
  11. 11. Estimated housing construction rates in the new towns over the decades from 1951 to 2011 showing period of intense growth and an increasing focus on the south The darker green the cells, the greater the number of homes constructed in that decade. Orange cells indicate low or stagnant growth Darker red cells, indicates a reduction in housing growth, reflecting homes being demolished to 1961 to 1971 to 1981 to 1991 to 2001 to 2011 WGC 4833 2414 357 0 866 1225 Peterlee 3883 4190 536 -1296 3113 0 Aycliffe 3780 4345 893 -667 309 198 Hatfield 3567 2345 -357 1481 385 800 Bracknell 4517 6414 3643 1422 -465 4948 Harlow 15967 8310 893 -1259 1923 560 Hemel H 10667 5862 3750 -481 1846 1400 Stevenage 11433 8724 2750 741 1346 1800 Crawley 14667 4759 2929 4148 4825 2742 Basildon 10000 9655 6071 21111 3462 3600 Corby 6767 5000 179 -1430 715 4800 Skelmersdale 5966 4750 444 -1077 0 Runcorn 2224 10339 1667 -1692 -1000 Washington 2586 9821 1926 -2000 448 Redditch 2690 8536 5704 154 2000 Telford 9286 5926 3654 2200 MK 17607 18111 12615 13000 Peterborough 12500 5889 6962 11600 Warrington 5000 6296 8077 6000 Northampton 8214 9630 2308 8000  Periods of high growth relating to the early years of new town designation building toward target growth  Most new towns follow rapid growth by a decade of stagnation followed by a decade of modest contraction – often the result of poorly constructed homes being demolished within 30-40yrs  Continued growth through from 1980 – 2010 in MK3 NT’s and expanded towns only – with the exception of Basildon!
  12. 12. Population growth and quality of retail offer: smaller new towns with generally limited offer/performance; a number of medium size towns that are stagnant or met target growth with a relatively indifferent or poor offer; larger towns continuing to grow relatively quickly with a reasonable town centre offer. Outliers include WGC (higher than expected offer), Stevenage, Corby, Basildon, Runcorn and Skelmersdale (falling well below expectations) which may warrant further analysis
  13. 13. Learning from the New Towns Are New towns Successful? Lessons – in comparison to what? •By 1991 growth in New Towns (NTs) amounted to homes for 1.4 million people. •By 2011, almost 500, 000 homes were delivered in English NTs. •NTs delivered up to 2,000 new homes per annum per town – initially up to 90% of this was public housing – post 1991, primarily private sector homes – in limited number of growing NTs. •Some NTs continue to be economic and cultural drivers in their sub-region, whilst others are struggling to retain jobs. Expanded, and 3rd generation NTs have generally been most successful. •Larger NTs in strategic locations appear to be a recipe for success. Smaller NTs, often constructed to serve short term need or a specific employment use have been less successful. •Public appropriation of land values was essential, as were loans from treasury at reasonable rates. Most NTs have repaid loans and generate positive receipts after 30-50 year period. •Many early NTs illustrated slight concern for peoples preferences – paternalism of Lord Reith •New towns were often experiments in how people should live – with very variable success. •Some NTs have been inflexible in their ability to adapt to change – over dependence on single employer, or dominance of single land owner in town centres. •Over-provision of infrastructure represents wasted investment and has helped create a negative stigma for many NTs ( roundabouts, flyovers and dual carriageways to nowhere?) •Too much experimentation in early years resulted in abortive investment
  14. 14. Learning from our legacy, Project Profile • Location 30 ha site - SE corner of Greenwich Peninsula • Context Regeneration of gasworks site • Rationale A Millennium community to be a “tangible living model of best practice and theory in sustainable development” • Description 30 ha site, to accommodate a new ecology park, 3000 homes, school, health facilities and a mixed use centre • Place Promoter EP (HCA), now GLA • Land ownership EP (HCA), now GLA • Delivery Method Infrastructure by EP, developer / design competition won by Countryside with Ralph Erskine (arch) – joint venture. • Development programme Start on site - 2000, 1200 homes to date, ecology park, school, health centre and emerging village centre Design Features • Concept of an 21st Century Urban Village, 3000 homes divided into 4 sub neighbourhoods ,each including distinct urban blocks built around courtyards and green spaces (Maida Vale principles) • • • • • • • A master plan that works for people – community hubs A revolution in the design of new homes (space and light) A model for environmental sustainable development A new era in UK house building Mixed-tenure development (min 20% affordable) Vibrant community – mixed uses Transferable lessons to UK house building reference GMV
  15. 15. Learning from our legacy, GMV  Success factors Excellent school and health facilities provided at the beginning of construction, helped to tie development into surrounding local community and give a village focus.  Excellent quality of development and public realm achieved including 2 “Building for life” Gold awards  Village centre initially slow, now being established    25% of homes social tenure, pepper potted throughout All homes designed to a minimum Ecohomes Excellent std Pedestrian friendly streets are attractive, however lack vibrancy – being replaced in later phases. Quality of architecture creates identity which has value.  Key lessons reference  Public / private partnerships are vital, however deal with one cautious developer has resulted in slow delivery  Excellent transport links from outset has helped establish sustainable transport choices  Good design is critical in making sustainable communities work – GMV has a distinct identity which attracts investment  Need to be ambitious from the outset but flexible – standards set were good, however outdated within a few years  Community infrastructure should go in at early stages  Need to learn from lessons in each phase of development – later phases are adopting new design principles  A variety of developers and architects improve quality and speed
  16. 16. Learning from our legacy, Project Profile • Location SW edge of Northampton • Context Latest NT neighbourhood 44ha • Rationale High quality neighbourhood, part of wider SW Northampton district extension, part of Sustainable Urban extension exemplar programme (DCLG) • Description 1,400 homes, mixed use village centre, new primary school, country park, community centre • Place Promoter NDC with HCA and Prince’s Foundation • Land ownership HCA • Delivery Method Master plan / design code formulated by HCA and NDC. HCA orchestration . • Development programme 12 year programme Design Features • Master plan produced through a collaborative design exercise with Princes Foundation • A design code was produced to co-ordinate design quality over time • 8 defined phases create distinct character areas and include smaller developer opportunities. • Development is made up of urban blocks with continuous terraces and internal parking courts • Sustainable urban drainage system is integral to development and offsets flooding threat. reference Upton,Northampton
  17. 17. Learning from our legacy, Upton, Northampton Success factors  Consistently delivers a very high quality of development over the period, including a wide range of types.  EBD process enabled number of homes to increase by 25%.  Values and delivery maintained through recession period.  Design code allows each phase of development to achieve planning approval in as little as 6 weeks.  Mixed use in neighbourhood has been difficult to deliver.  A sustainable urban drainage system has allowed the scheme to be constructed in a high flood risk area. Key lessons The public realm and infrastructure, including a SUDS system are delivered in advance by HCA to facilitate serviced plots – receipts attained make scheme cost neutral In order to deliver the high quality environment over a 10 year period by a number of diverse developers, a set of Design Codes have been developed by the consultants team and endorsed as Supplementary Planning Development by the local authority – managed a Working Group, which involves many of the members of the original Enquiry by Design process, including HCA and LA who work collaboratively to deliver a consistently high quality of development through a speedier planning process. Design code must be flexible and respond to lessons e.g. parking courts are under-utilised and unattractive. Mixed use must go in the most commercially viable location. reference
  18. 18. Learning from our legacy, Project Profile • Location 6 miles SE of Leeds • Context Brownfield regen of coal mining village • Rationale Mill Comm exemplar to demonstrate good design and environmental stds in a low value location • Description Up to 600 homes in 4 quadrants + 25k m2 of commercial space and job opportunities • Place Promoter English Partnerships (HCA) and DCLG • Land ownership EP inherited from National Coal board • Delivery Method Advance infrastructure and land reclamation by EP. Serviced parcels released to multiple developers in accordance with design code • Development programme On-site 2005, 3 phases complete – reminder of site released to DPP 2012 Design Features • International design competition 1998 – too ambitious and not supported by local community • EP took more hands on role in 2004 – collaborative sessions with developers, LA and cabe to develop a design code, adopted by Leeds CC • Largest Home zone in Uk • £60k house competition • Urban summit house site reference Allerton Bywater
  19. 19. Learning from our legacy Allerton Bywater Success factors • First B4Life winning scheme in Yorkshire • Despite low value location, developers have continued to deliver through recession • HCA continues to receive overage indicating values have upheld better than locality • Has helped rebuild local community and stimulate the local economy Key lessons • • Exercise a degree of commercial realism at outset • Upfront time in agreeing design code saves time later • Need upfront investment to do things that private sector would not do - Developers want low risk opportunities – public sector provide physical and community infrastructure. • reference AB, illustrates how the construction of an attractive (but realistically priced) place in a previously declining place, can draw people back and reverse decline. There is significant value in oven ready sites which already have local authority and community support
  20. 20. Informing the future of LSD
  21. 21. Informing the future Garden Cities? Investment in Rented sector LIF £474m + £1 bn Unlocking Development GBB £570m Supporting ownership, Unlocking demand DCLG Housing Strategy 2013 Incentives and Communities RGF £2.6bn Public Sector Land
  22. 22. CASE STUDIES SUMMARY ANALYSIS Project Procurement Approach Infrastructure provision Proposed no. of homes Year started Number achieved to date Construc tion No. / rate PA Quality control & achieved Greenwich MV Peninsula divided into 5 neighbourhoods including GMV. Procured through developer / architect competition - Countryside with Ralph Erskine. Remediation and site infrastructure by EP (HCA) for peninsula £170m (10k dwgs). Value 2012 -117m receipt forecasts -440m 3000 2000 1200 100 Design guidance and design competitions 2 x BFL Upton, Northampton Site owned by EP (HCA), divided into 8 serviced parcels. Developments sold on building license EP (HCA) investment of £22.4m in infrastructure to include suds system, streets, transport. Receipts to date £29.6m 1400 Allerton Bywater, Leeds Initial competition – abandoned. Hand-on facilitation role by EP (HCA) serviced sites EP (HCA) investment of £24m in facilitation, infrastructure and decontamination. 600 Lawley, Telford Site sold to a consortia of Barratt / Persimmon /TW development agreement£99m receipt in return for 3300 homes in 11 yrs Facilitation costs £4.75m (HCA). Infrastructure by private sector ptnrs £23.8m to date including landscape, roads, S106 3300 Milton Keynes Development Corporation 67-92, funded through loans from Treasury. CNT/EP from 92. Land appropriated at present use value. 67-92 £902m – investment through MKDC, 92-06 £168m – CNT/EP. Receipts 92-06 £651.4m 110000 New Hall, Harlow Site owned and facilitated by landowner. Sites sold at fixed price - developer competition Public realm and infrastructure linked to each land parcel of 70 – 100 dwellings 2500 Crown street, Glasgow Each parcel sold at fixed price through competition – assessed on quality of response. Infrastructure - £64m by public sector to create manageable development parcels 2000 (10000 for peninsula) 3.3%pa 2004 960 120 8%pa 2006 350 50 8.5%pa 2006 505 80 2.5%pa 1967 70000 1550 1.75pa 2000 540 45 1.8%pa 19922004 2000 180 9%pa EBD. Master plan and Design code overseen by working group - 1 x BFL achieved Design code developed with LCC overseen by HCA 1 x BFL+ home zone EBD. Master plan and Design code managed by developer & overseen by TWDC Master planned and overseen by MKDC. Mk centre listed. High quality of life index for town. Design code overseen by Landowner 3 x BFL+ Detailed master plan and strict development guidelines
  23. 23. CASE STUDIES Project SUMMARY ANALYSIS Procurement approach Infrastructure provision Proposed no. of homes Year started Number achieved to date Construct ion – No. /rate pa Quality control & achieved 2000 8500 705 Detailed master plan and design guidance for each plot. 21 architectural practices on-site European comparators Hammarby, Sweden Project managed by Stockholm `city council. Serviced plots / blocks provided to 41 separate developers through competition or negotiation. E500m Infrastructure investment provided by SCC to include water / energy / waste plant and tram & decontamination. 11000 Vauban, Germany Priority in plot disposal was given to co-operatives of 10-20 families (30 co-ops) remaining sites went to small private sector developers City purchased 41ha military site. Facilitation and infrastructure by city including new tram. 2000 Adamstown, Ireland Designated a Strategic Development Zone. Single landowner – consortia of 3 private ptnrs. Values come from long-term site appreciation? E100m requirement. Each of 11 phases of dev is statutorily linked to a quantity of infrastructure, services and facilities 10000 Historic comparators Edinburgh NT Serviced plots or streets provided by City – sold to private developers / individuals Infrastructure provided by city fathers to encourage economic growth 3000* Site procured and developed by philanthropist to support his business efficiency. Built adjacent to river and canal for transport and energy. Sustainable principle 820 Saltaire 6%pa 19932006 2000 2003 1200 155 7.5%pa 135 1.4%pa 17701820 complete 60 2%pa 18511876 complete 35 4%pa Car free development built to the highest env stds Design code and master plan overseen by Dublin CC International design competition. Unesco WHS Single architect for entire development Unesco WHS
  24. 24. Financing Large Scale Development 1. Creating new places requires investment in infrastructure and facilities, including their long-term maintenance Where does the money come from? Grants (scarce) ? Value uplift? Investment ( needs attractive return) Town or city scale development will take a 30 – 50 year investment, neighbourhoods up to 20 years – need for a Patient Investor! Those with a long-term interests in a place may include, local authorities, enlightened landowners, national government, pension companies, registered providers, and the people who live there. Mainstream House builders are unlikely to deliver more than 250 homes pa in a single site. To get rates of delivery above 250 dwellings pa we need to attract a wider range of Infrastructure can be biggest barrier – need to question when it is needed and if it is needed at all. Easy and quick spend can be a barrier. Very large scale development is only possible where the land value captured stays in the local place and land values are kept at agricultural or hope values rather than development values. Issue 1 Issue 2 Issue 3 Issue 4
  25. 25. 2. Delivery options and Land ownership Multiple or fragments ownerships are highly likely to frustrate and distort the delivery of joined up sustainable development  Private sector only - will only work at neighbourhood / village scale.  Private sector led – public support public investment can reduce private sector risk.  Public sector orchestration - allows more private sector partners to contribute (significant value in oven ready with LA and community support – quality and speed is achieved best through this model)  Most successful examples from Europe are led and financed through enlightened City Councils. Issue 1 Issue 2 Issue 3 Issue 2
  26. 26. Location and Connections 3. Having development in the right place with connections to surrounding places is the foundation of sustainable development  LSD must have a purpose (Raison d’etre), There must be demand, it must serve local need, with good access to, or opportunities for employment, leisure, retail and employment  LSD should have an appropriate degree of selfcontainment.  LSD should be accessible to other places and serve a specific function in their area.  Distinct new places however should not be too close – may be difficult for new place to compete  New LSDs must address Environmental concerns and local ambitions  Connections from outset are critical Issue 1 Issue 2 GMV Issue 3 Issue 4
  27. 27. Quality and Design‘ 4. In a nutshell, because we don’t build beautifully, people don’t let us build much. And because we don’t build much, we can’t afford to build beautifully” Nick Boles LSD examples are amongst the best and worst places in UK - learn from both positive and negative examples New places should identify opportunities for innovation – look to the future (40-50years) to ensure that the whole place is delivered in accordance with local and national ambitions - always ensure financial viability is developed collaboratively - the compatibility of planning and delivery Design Codes can coordinate quality by number of developers and consultants over time, brings consistency and clarity over delivery period – LSD will not suit all developers – only the best! A variety of developers and consultants can enhance vibrancy and interest Respond to local need – not corporate / political ambitions Build on what we know works – don’t be too experimental Quality has to be maintained The early phases of development are critical Don’t re-invent the wheel Issue 1 Issue 2 Issue 3 Issue 4
  28. 28. Executive Summary  The UK has led world-class innovations in large scale place-making for centuries, resulting in some of the most economically successful and attractive places to live and work and also some of the worst - It is critical that we learn from our legacy in order to inform future delivery of a new generation of large scale places, including potential new towns or garden cities.  Delivering a new neighbourhood over 15 years or a new town over a 50 year period, requires long-term commitment and strong leadership which transcends political or spending review periods, party and personal interests, trends, fashions and initiatives.  In a favourable market and location, developers will deliver up to 250 homes per annum. For larger projects or where we want an increased rate of delivery, we need to attract a variety of developers and investors ideally focused on different markets or uses.  The best results come from a partnerships approach between the public and private sectors – the greater the risk borne by the public sector, the greater the speed, quality and innovation that can be achieved by the private sector.  The greater the expectation of land values, the more difficult it will be to deliver LSD. In order to deliver infrastructure at the largest of scales, land value will need to be as close to agricultural values as possible.  A Patient Investor in LSD will be rewarded provided they can wait for a 30-50 years.  Investment in a high quality of place is essential to achieving consensus for development and ensuring a return in long-term investment is achieved and maintained.

×