Large Scale Development – the lessons of experience

Kevin McGeough, RESi 14, Manchester February 2014

Defining Large Scale Development

Sustainable place making at scaleo 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

Types of LSD

Garden CitySustainable Urban Extension

Eco-town

Millennium Community

Garden SuburbUrban Village

Garden Village Sustainable Urban

Neighborhood

Locally-planned large scale development (LPLSD)

Sustainable SuburbiaNew Town

Eco-regionLarge scale sites

Examples of large scale development

City / sub-regionalOver 50,000 homes

TownOver 10,000 homes

Village / DistrictOver 2,500 homes

NeighborhoodOver 500, homes

Port Marine 3500New Hall 2600

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),

Places are in descending order of size

17851850

1946

1920

1964

1965

1967

1997

1992

1999

2000

2012

2000

TimelineA History of Large scale development in the UK

Summary Case Study, Edinburgh New Town

reference

• 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”

• 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

Project Profile Success factors

Design Features Key lessons

• International design competition

• 10% green space

• 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

• 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.

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

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.

Summary Case Study, Welwyn Garden City

reference

• 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 achieved – stoppedpassed to CNT.

Project Profile

Design Features • Built to garden city principles

incorporating new ideas such as routes for cars – along broad tree-lined 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.

Summary Case Study, Welwyn Garden City

reference

• 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

Success factors

Key lessons • 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.

• Keeping a single architect over-seeing development for 40 years has resulted in exceptional quality and continuity.

• 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.

Learning from the New Towns Background

•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.

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 growthDarker red cells, indicates a reduction in housing growth, reflecting homes being demolished

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!

to 1961 to 1971 to 1981 to 1991 to 2001 to 2011WGC 4833 2414 357 0 866 1225Peterlee 3883 4190 536 -1296 3113 0Aycliffe 3780 4345 893 -667 309 198Hatfield 3567 2345 -357 1481 385 800Bracknell 4517 6414 3643 1422 -465 4948Harlow 15967 8310 893 -1259 1923 560Hemel H 10667 5862 3750 -481 1846 1400Stevenage 11433 8724 2750 741 1346 1800Crawley 14667 4759 2929 4148 4825 2742Basildon 10000 9655 6071 21111 3462 3600Corby 6767 5000 179 -1430 715 4800Skelmersdale 5966 4750 444 -1077 0Runcorn 2224 10339 1667 -1692 -1000Washington 2586 9821 1926 -2000 448Redditch 2690 8536 5704 154 2000Telford 9286 5926 3654 2200MK 17607 18111 12615 13000Peterborough 12500 5889 6962 11600Warrington 5000 6296 8077 6000Northampton 8214 9630 2308 8000

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

Learning from the New Towns Lessons

•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

•LAs in the NTs have found it more difficult than those elsewhere to regenerate their areas.

Are New towns Successful? – in comparison to what?

Learning from our legacy, GMV

reference

• 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

Project Profile

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

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.

Success factors

Key lessons 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

Learning from our legacy, GMV

Learning from our legacy, Upton,Northampton

reference

• 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

Project Profile

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.

Learning from our legacy, Upton, Northampton

reference

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 neutralIn 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.

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.

Learning from our legacy, Allerton Bywater

reference

• 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

Project Profile

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

Learning from our legacy Allerton Bywater

reference

• 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

Success factors

Key lessons

• AB, illustrates how the construction of an attractive (but realistically priced) place in a previously declining place, can draw people back and reverse decline.

• 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.

• There is significant value in oven ready sites which already have local authority and community support

Informing the future of LSD

Informing the future

Investment in Rented sector

Unlocking Development

Supporting ownership,Unlocking demand

Incentives and Communities

DCLG Housing Strategy 2013

Garden Cities?

LIF £474m + £1 bn

RGF £2.6bn

GBB £570m Public Sector Land

Project Procurement Approach Infrastructure provision

Proposed no. of homes

Year started

Number achieved to date

Construction 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

(10000 for peninsula)

2000 1200 100

3.3%pa

Design guidance and design competitions2 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 2004 960 120

8%pa

EBD. Master plan and Design code overseen by working group - 1 x BFL achieved

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 2006 350 50

8.5%pa

Design code developed with LCC - overseen by HCA1 x BFL+ home zone

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 2006 505 80

2.5%pa

EBD. Master plan and Design code managed by developer & overseen by TWDC

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 1967 70000 1550

1.75pa

Master planned and overseen by MKDC. Mk centre listed. High quality of life index for town.

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 2000 540 45

1.8%pa

Design code overseen by Landowner3 x BFL+

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 1992-2004

2000 180

9%pa

Detailed master plan and strict development guidelines

CASE STUDIES SUMMARY ANALYSIS

Project Procurement approach Infrastructure provision

Proposed no. of homes

Year started

Number achieved to date

Construction – No. /rate pa

Quality control &achieved

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 2000 8500 705

6%pa

Detailed master plan and design guidance for each plot. 21 architectural practices on-site

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 1993-2006

2000 155

7.5%pa

Car free development built to the highest env stds

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 2003 1200 135

1.4%pa

Design code and master plan overseen by Dublin CC

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* 1770-1820

complete 60

2%pa

International design competition.Unesco WHS

Saltaire Site procured and developed by philanthropist to support his business efficiency.

Built adjacent to river and canal for transport and energy. Sustainable principle

820 1851- 1876

complete 35

4%pa

Single architect for entire developmentUnesco WHS

CASE STUDIES SUMMARY ANALYSIS

1. Financing Large Scale DevelopmentCreating new places requires investment in infrastructure and facilities, including their long-term maintenanceWhere 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

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 2Issue 3Issue 2

3. Location and ConnectionsHaving 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 self-containment.

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 Issue 3 Issue 4

GMV

4. Quality and Design‘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 examplesNew 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 ambitionsBuild on what we know works – don’t be too experimentalQuality has to be maintainedThe early phases of development are critical Don’t re-invent the wheel

Issue 1 Issue 4Issue 3Issue 2

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.