Land, Development and Design

Land, Development and Design 2nd Edition Paul Syms Honorary Professor at the Centre for Urban Policy Studies University...

Author: Paul Syms

335 downloads 2031 Views 9MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Land, Development and Design 2nd Edition

Paul Syms Honorary Professor at the Centre for Urban Policy Studies University of Manchester, UK and Fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) UK

A John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Publication

Land, Development and Design

Land, Development and Design 2nd Edition

Paul Syms Honorary Professor at the Centre for Urban Policy Studies University of Manchester, UK and Fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) UK

A John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Publication

This edition first published 2010 © 2002 Blackwell Publishing Ltd © 2010 Paul Syms Blackwell Publishing was acquired by John Wiley & Sons in February 2007. Blackwell’s publishing programme has been merged with Wiley’s global Scientific, Technical, and Medical business to form Wiley-Blackwell. First edition published 2002 Second edition published 2010 Registered office John Wiley & Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, United Kingdom Editorial office 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, United Kingdom 2121 State Avenue, Ames, Iowa 50014-8300, USA For details of our global editorial offices, for customer services and for information about how to apply for permission to reuse the copyright material in this book, please see our website at www.wiley.com/wiley-blackwell. The right of the author to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, without the prior permission of the publisher. Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print may not be available in electronic books.

Designations used by companies to distinguish their products are often claimed as trademarks. All brand names and product names used in this book are trade names, service marks, trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners. The publisher is not associated with any product or vendor mentioned in this book. This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered. It is sold on the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. If professional advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Syms, Paul M. Land, development and design / Paul Syms. – 2nd ed. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-4051-9853-0 (alk. paper) 1. Reclamation of land–Great Britain. 2. Housing development–Great Britain. 3. Land use–Government policy–Great Britain. 4. Brownfields–Great Britain. I. Title. HD596.S967 2010 333.73'1530941–dc22 2010029072 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. First edition typeset in 11/13pt (Bembo) Set in 10/12pt Minion by Toppan Best-set Premedia Limited Printed in Singapore 1 2010 Maps reproduced from Ordnance Survey mapping on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. © Crown Copyright OS Licence number 100049799

Contents

Author Biography

x

Preface to First Edition

xi

Preface to Second Edition Part One Planning and Development 1

The Development Process 1.1 Introduction 1.2 The phases of redevelopment Preparation 1.2.1 Phase 1 – Project inception 1.2.2 Phase 2 – Feasibility assessment 1.2.3 Phase 3 – Site assessment Options 1.2.4 Phase 4 – Options assessment 1.2.5 Phase 5 – Working design of the preferred option Design 1.2.6 Phase 6 – Detailed design 1.2.7 Phase 7 – Regulatory and planning 1.2.8 Phase 8 – Legal, property and funding Delivery 1.2.9 Phase 9 – Financial appraisal 1.2.10 Phase 10 – Works procurement and execution 1.2.11 Phase 11 – Sales and marketing 1.3 The 2008–9 ‘credit crunch’ and its impact on property markets 1.4 Summary

2 Planning Policies and Development 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Planning Policy Statements and Guidance Notes 2.3 The Urban Task Force and the Urban White Paper 2.4 Urban land-use policies and the National Brownfield Strategy for England

xiv 1 3 3 6 6 6 7 8 9 9 10 12 12 13 14 15 15 18 19 20 21 23 23 24 27 30

vi

Contents

2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 3

The housing Green Paper and land for housing The London Brownfield Sites Review Summary Checklist

Project Inception, Developers and Feasibility 3.1 Introduction 3.2 Recession and property values 3.3 Land for development 3.3.1 Residential development 3.3.2 Commercial development 3.4 Assessing the market potential 3.4.1 Market research 3.4.2 Using the tools to assess market potential 3.5 Forecasting rents and prices 3.6 Summary 3.7 Checklist

Part Two

Land

39 41 43 44 45 45 46 49 51 52 54 56 59 63 64 65 73

4 Site Assembly, Investigation and Assessment 4.1 Introduction 4.2 Site assembly 4.3 The historical study 4.3.1 A practical example 4.3.2 Maps, scales and other sources of information 4.3.3 Reporting the historical study 4.4 Walk-over survey 4.5 Intrusive and other forms of site investigation 4.5.1 Sampling strategies 4.5.2 Laboratory analysis 4.6 The final report 4.7 Summary 4.8 Checklist

75 75 78 79 82 93 95 96 101 103 107 108 111 111

5 Environment and Ecological Considerations 5.1 Introduction 5.2 Natural colonisation of brownfield land 5.3 Environmental assessment 5.4 The importance of landscape 5.5 Soils and substrates: the platform for development 5.6 Biodiversity of previously developed land 5.7 Policy and legislative framework for biodiversity conservation 5.8 Ecological surveys and the formation of new habitats 5.9 Land and development in a changing climate 5.10 The response to climate change

112 112 112 115 117 118 121 123 125 129 131

Contents

6

vii

5.11 Summary 5.12 Checklist

135 135

Heritage and Archaeology 6.1 Introduction 6.2 Conservation policies and guidance 6.3 Planning and the historic environment 6.4 Archaeology and redevelopment 6.5 Summary 6.6 Checklist

137 137 137 141 143 144 144

7 Community Involvement in Tackling Blight and Dereliction 7.1 Introduction 7.2 Economic and visual blight 7.3 The benefits of removing blight 7.4 Skills 7.5 Summary 7.6 Checklist

146 146 146 149 158 160 160

8

162 162 163 167 169 173 175 177 179 179

Contaminated Soil and Remediation Methods 8.1 Introduction 8.2 European Directives and UK legislation 8.3 Removal and containment 8.4 In situ and ex situ treatments 8.5 The costs of dealing with contamination and dereliction 8.6 Tackling small sites 8.7 Land with no development value 8.8 Summary 8.9 Checklist

Part Three Development 9 Valuation of Damaged and Restored Land 9.1 Introduction 9.2 Valuation approaches 9.3 ‘Stigma’ or taking account of ‘intangibles’ 9.4 Applying valuation theories in practice 9.5 Reporting contamination and other damage to land 9.6 Summary 9.7 Checklist 10 Urban Extensions, Infrastructure and Eco-towns 10.1 Introduction 10.2 Sustainable urban extensions 10.3 Infrastructure 10.4 Eco-towns

181 183 183 184 188 195 199 200 201 202 202 204 205 209

viii

Contents


214 214

11 Development Finance 11.1 Introduction 11.2 Financial appraisals 11.2.1 Institutional leases and investment yields 11.2.2 Viability of the project 11.3 Financing a new development 11.3.1 Creditworthiness 11.3.2 Costs of finance 11.4 Types of finance 11.4.1 Debt financing 11.4.2 Equity financing 11.4.3 Mezzanine finance 11.5 Joint ventures and Special Purpose Vehicles 11.6 Forward sales and rental guarantees 11.7 Public-sector finance 11.8 Summary 11.9 Checklist

215 215 216 217 218 219 219 220 221 221 223 223 224 225 226 228 229

Part Four

231

Design

12 Public Realm and Managing Land for Public Benefit 12.1 Introduction 12.2 Planning for quality public spaces 12.2.1 Design and upkeep of buildings and spaces 12.2.2 Green space and green infrastructure 12.2.3 Treatment of historic buildings and places 12.2.4 World-class Places – Action Plan 12.3 Urban and rural waterfronts as public spaces 12.4 The economic value of urban design 12.5 Summary 12.6 Checklist

233 233 234 237 237 238 239 242 244 251 251

13 Designing out Crime 13.1 Introduction 13.2 The basis for crime preventative design 13.3 The role of the local authority in promoting design-based approaches to reducing crime 13.4 Advice on crime preventative design: an outline of UK guidance 13.5 Case studies in crime preventative design 13.5.1 Wharf Close, Manchester 13.5.2 Residential development and car park, Sale 13.5.3 Comparisons between the case studies 13.6 New developments and crime

252 252 252 253 255 257 258 262 266 267

Contents


ix

269 269

14 Design Standards for Residential and Commercial Developments 14.1 Introduction 14.2 Urban design, smart growth and new urbanism 14.3 Design codes 14.4 Modern methods of construction (MMC) and zero-carbon homes 14.4.1 Modern methods of construction 14.4.2 Zero-carbon homes 14.5 Development densities and the Code for Sustainable Homes 14.5.1 Development densities 14.5.2 Code for Sustainable Homes 14.5.3 Lifetime homes 14.6 Achieving quality in commercial development 14.6.1 BRE Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) 14.6.2 Design Quality Indicator (DQI) 14.7 Summary 14.8 Checklist

271 271 271 275

15 Planning for the Future 15.1 Introduction 15.2 Planning and development 15.3 Land 15.4 Development 15.5 Design 15.6 Conclusion

293 293 295 296 297 299 300

References Further Reading Web Links Index

302 317 319 321

280 280 281 282 282 284 287 290 290 290 291 291

Author Biography

Paul Syms is a Chartered Planning and Development Surveyor by profession. He is Honorary Professor in the Department of Planning and Landscape at the University of Manchester and a Fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. He is chair of the trustees of the RICS Education Trust, the surveying profession’s leading charitable body providing research grants to academic researchers throughout the world. He has spent most of his professional career, both as practitioner and academic, involved with brownfield land and between 2004 and 2008 was Director of National Brownfield Strategy and National Brownfield Advisor to English Partnerships and the Department for Communities and Local Government (formerly Office of the Deputy Prime Minister). Prior to that he was Professor of Urban Land Use at Sheffield Hallam University and, with his wife, ran his own consultancy practice. Paul has taught surveying and town planning students at undergraduate and post-graduate levels since the late 1980s. He has a Masters degree in economic geography, with particular emphasis on urban policy impacts, and has acted in a consultancy capacity on many major urban regeneration and land reclamation projects. His doctoral research was into the redevelopment and valuation of land affected by contamination. His research interests cover a broad spectrum of urban regeneration and policy impacts. His publications include Contaminated Land: The practice and economics of redevelopment (1997, Blackwell Science); Building Homes on Used Land (2000, RICS Books); Releasing Brownfields (2001, RICS Foundation); and Previously Developed Land: Industrial activities and contamination (2004, Blackwell Publishing).


My objective in writing Land, Development and Design was to produce an up to date text for use by both students and practitioners in the surveying and town planning disciplines. I wished to concentrate on the reuse of urban laird, in line with the emerging policies relating to increasing densities and greater reliance on public transport – what I have called regeneration of the built environment. However, it would have been wrong to totally ignore greenfield development and many of the issues discussed in the book are equally relevant to greenfield sites. One of the masterplanning case studies in Chapter 14 also deals with a major new greenfield project – Cambourne in Cambridgeshire. Inevitably, given my interests, part of the book deals with the problems surrounding the redevelopment of land affected by contamination. It is not intended to be a technical treatise on dealing with contamination, rather it is aimed at the developer, surveyor and town planner, all of whom need to know what to look for in technical reports. Nevertheless, I hope that the book will be of interest to engineers, environmental scientists and the regulators in environmental health departments and the Environmental Agencies, providing them with an insight into the development process. Land, Development and Design is divided into four parts. Part One consists of three chapters, which introduce the development process and describe planning policies as they currently exist in England. The approach to the development process is based on the eleven phases of development, as they relate to the re-use of land, which Peter Knight and I first described in our book Building Hones on Used Land1. Part Two opens with site assembly and putting together the professional team before moving on to site assessment, risk analysis and the remediation of contaminated land. The feasibility study is discussed in the first chapter of Part Three. Here I have taken a fairly straightforward approach to the subject of financial appraisals, similar to that which a property developer might adopt in the early stages of a project. For readers who wish to extend their reading in this area there are a number of good texts on advanced valuations. Planning and environmental regulation, the thorny subject of waste management licensing, development finance and joint ventures, tendering and contracts are also considered in Part Three, which concludes with a look at marketing and selling the development.

1

Based on research for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and published by RICS Books.

xii


Part Four deals with design issues in the first three chapters. I must stress that it is not intended as a handbook for urban designers or architects, as there are plenty of people far more competent than myself to write for these audiences. Instead, I have looked at some aspects that are of interest to me, and I hope to others in the field of development. The last chapter in Part Four brings the reader up to date with the proposed changes to the town planning regime in the 2001 planning Green Paper and its ‘daughter papers’. When I started to write this book in the early summer of 2001 I was conscious of the fact that a great many changes had taken place during the preceding couple of years in terms of Government policies relating to property development in the urban environment. I was also aware that even more changes, concerning town planning policies and the reuse of urban land, were likely to be proposed over the ensuing mouths and years. I could have decided to defer writing the book until all the new policy ideas had been either implemented or abandoned but that would have resulted in a delay of several years. Therefore I agreed with Julia Burden, Deputy Publishing Director at Blackwell Publishing, that we would have a ‘cut-off ’ date of the end of December 2001. In the event, writing extended into the first few weeks of January 2002 and I should like to thank Julia and the team at Blackwell for their patience in respect of the constantly changing manuscript of the last few weeks. I am also grateful to the technical reviewers, especially Judith Lowe, Special Professor at the University of Nottingham, for their input and helpful comments. As with my earlier book, Contaminated Land: the practice and economics of redevelopment2, I have included checklists at the end of each chapter. Many people commented to me about the usefulness of these in Contaminated Land and I hope that the checklists in this book are equally helpful to the reader. A great many people have helped in the production of this book and it is not possible to name them all but I should like to mention a few. My good friend Tim Abbott of Abbott and Associates, civil engineering quantity surveyors, wrote Chapter eleven on Tendering and Contracts. I cannot claim any expertise in this subject and I am grateful to Tim for his help. I should also like to thank the team at Taylor Young Urban Design, especially Andy Clarke, for producing the mini masterplan used in Chapters 5 and 8. Dr Sarah Macnaugton of Bio-wise suggested some of the remediation and treatment case studies in Chapter seven, whilst others were provided by QDS and Knight Environmental. Staff members at N.M. Rothschild & Co, Ansbacher & Co and the Royal Bank of Scotland spent time explaining the approaches adopted by their banks when financing development projects. Gwyn Griffiths of the Welsh Development Agency provided the Port of Barry joint venture case study. David Gray of the East of England Development Agency and Sue Arnold of Ipswich Borough Council both provided me with information for the Ipswich case study, as too did the Concept Centre team and Terry Farrell & Partners for

2

Blackwell Science, 1997.


xiii

the Cambourne Study. I am also extremely grateful to the various developers, architects and town planners who assisted me with the other design case studies. I should like to thank everyone who provided photographs and other illustrations used throughout the book. Their copyright is noted in the Acknowledgements after the references section. Where possible I have tried to provide Internet ‘weblinks’, so as to enable the reader to follow up topics in more detail. These weblinks are listed at the end of Chapter 2. I should like to thank my colleagues at Sheffield Hallam University, who made suggestions as to what should be included in the book and allowed me the time to undertake the writing. Finally, I should like to thank my wife and collaborator, Janice, for her perseverance in reading countless drafts and for suggesting a number of the topics covered in the book. Without her help the final outcome would not have been achieved.

Preface to Second Edition

It is almost nine years since the first edition of Land, Development and Design was written, during which time there have been a great many changes to legislation, regulations, guidance and policies associated with property development and the reuse of previously developed land. As a result, this second edition is an almost total re-write, with many new examples and case studies. Some chapters in the first edition, including those on risk analysis and contract procedures, have been omitted in the new work but are, nevertheless, still highly relevant in terms of today’s development activities. They have been replaced by new chapters on the environment and ecology, community involvement and designing out crime. Most of the research and writing for this new edition took place during the second half of 2009 and the first quarter of 2010, an extremely volatile period in terms of global economics and, especially relevant, development activities in the United Kingdom. Residential and commercial development companies have scaled back their activities, have had to negotiate new financing arrangements and, in many cases, have laid off large numbers of employees. Banks have been through a period of being reluctant to lend money, not only to property developers but even to each other. All of these events have meant that several sections of the book had to be reviewed and updated even before the entire text was completed. I have therefore endeavoured to ensure that the text is as up to date as possible as at the end of March 2010. Since then we have had a General Election, on 6 May, and the formation of a new Coalition Government. Inevitably this will mean that some planning and land use policies will be amended, or even scrapped, and some regulations and guidance will be subject to further revisions. In mid-June 2010 this has already started, with the Government having signalled that it intends to replace the newly formed Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC), see chapters 2 and 10, with a Major Infrastructure Unit as part of a revised structure for the Department for Communities and Local Government (CLG). The Government has also announced that ‘councils and communities are being given immediate powers to prevent the destructive practice of “garden grabbing” and to decide what types of homes are suitable for their area’, the reason given being that ‘over the last decade, many councils have been left frustrated at the increasing amount of inappropriate development on gardens which they have been unable to prevent. This is because planning guidance has classified gardens as “previously residential land”, in the same Brownfield category as derelict factories and disused railway sidings.’ (CLG press statement 9 June 2010)1. 1 Government figures show that the proportion of new houses built on previously residential land such as gardens has risen dramatically, from one in ten to one in four between 1997 and 2008.


xv

More than three decades have elapsed since I first became involved with the redevelopment and reuse of brownfield land and it is inevitable that my own perspective will have altered over this time. Whilst I remain firmly committed to the principle of first considering the potential of previously developed sites, when planning to meet future land use needs, I no longer see them solely in terms of their development potential. Instead, I would propose that the decision making processes regarding these brownfield sites be framed by six criteria, as follows: Need – currently the first of two main drivers influencing the redevelopment and reuse of brownfield land – taking account of the reasonable requirements of present and future generations for housing, employment, public services, recreation and open spaces; recognising that it probably will not be possible to fully satisfy the potential demands indicated by theoretical projections and that these projections themselves may be subject to significant revisions resulting from changing national and international circumstances. Environment – the second of today’s main drivers – both in the context of the current, immediate or short term harm to the environment arising out of the site in its present condition (for example both contamination and visual blight), and the potential for it being remediated, including the environmental cost of that remediation. Ecology – we have perhaps been slow to recognise the ecological importance of our brownfield sites, especially those that have been left undisturbed by human activities for periods of many years; these can provide important habitats (including for invertebrates) and their future status, with and without redevelopment, needs to be carefully evaluated. Aesthetics – including the actual or potential blighting effect of some brownfield sites, however, it is all too easy to say that the structures or other objects that blight the landscape should be ‘swept away’ with the risk that some of our industrial heritage may be destroyed; instead the future need and uses for such sites should be carefully evaluated, as replacing them with barren landscapes of cleared, but undeveloped, sites may be equally undesirable. Politics – it is inevitable that politics, local, regional and national (or in some cases even international), will have roles to play in terms of deciding the future of previously developed brownfield sites; these will take the form of planning guidance as well as strategies set at the different levels of government, together with political influences on the lending policies of banks, and they will also include vested interests and others at the local scale, such as residents’ groups and business representative bodies. Social – whatever we do with brownfield sites there will, inevitably, be social impacts and as part of this I include those of a ‘cultural’ nature, as communities undergo changes associated with the redevelopment and reuse of site; these impacts can be both bad and good, for example the redevelopment of a derelict site may result in the loss of informal open space valued by the local community, whereas its replacement with new areas of ‘public realm’ integrated within the new development may engender a new sense of civic pride, with more widespread impacts than just the local neighbourhood.

xvi


This book has been written for everyone involved with the process of property development, especially the redevelopment and reuse of previously developed, or brownfield land and buildings. I would urge readers to take account of, or at least consider, the criteria set out above when making development related decisions, even if it is decided that some are not relevant to the particular site under consideration. As with the first edition, the book is divided into four parts. Part One, chapters 1–3, deals with the processes of planning and development, including policy guidance and the 11-phase development process for brownfield sites – Preparation, Options, Design and Delivery (PODD). Part Two, chapters 4–8, covers matters relating to the land, including its assessment and acquisition, environmental and ecological issues, archaeology, community involvement and site preparation. Part Three, chapters 9–11, discusses valuation approaches, urban extensions, ecotowns and development finance. Finally, Part Four, chapters 12–15, deals with matters relating to design, including the exclusion of crime and the applicability of design codes, with chapter 15 taking a look to the future. Many different people provided an input to the writing of this second edition of Land, Development and Design and it is not possible to mention them all by name. I would, however, like to mention Ian McArthur and his colleagues at Groundwork (North West), as well as Donna Lyndsay and her colleagues at Landmark International for all of their help in relation to the case studies. I should like to acknowledge and thank all of the copyright holders of works reproduced in the book for giving their consents. Three of my colleagues in the Department of Planning & Landscape at the University of Manchester contributed to the work by writing chapters. Professor John Handley and Karen Nolan collaborated to produce chapter 5 on the environment and ecology, whilst Jennifer Hall wrote chapter 13 on designing out crime. Dr Paul Sayer and Cat Oakley at Wiley-Blackwell provided considerable help and kept me on the straight and narrow in preparing the work for publication. I should like to thank them both, together with the copy-editors and the rest of the production team that have coped with my requests relating to layout and positioning of Figures and Tables, theirs has not been an easy task. Finally, I should like to thank my wife Janice for her unstinting support, as well as all her hard work in proofreading and preparing the index, this book is dedicated to her. Paul Syms Manchester 14 June 2010

Notes on contributors John Handley is Professor Emeritus in the School of Environment & Development at the University of Manchester and a non-Executive Director of the Land Trust. He has undertaken extensive practical and research work with the Groundwork Foundation, a nation-wide network with substantial achievements in urban


xvii

regeneration and land restoration. John’s other areas of research interest include regional landscape appraisals and strategies, climate change assessment, national and regional material flow analysis, and brownfield/greenfield issues. Karen Nolan is an ecologist who is currently undertaking PhD research into small brownfield sites in Liverpool, looking at both the ecological and urban design implications of bringing these sites back into use. Jennifer Hall is a town planner who is currently undertaking PhD research into the social impact of brownfield land, as part of a research programme sponsored by the Homes & Communities Agency.

Part One

Planning and Development

1

Introduction The first edition of Land, Development and Design, published in 2002, opened with a quotation from the Urban Task Force, chaired by Lord Rogers of Riverside. The quotation observed, inter alia, the Task Force had calculated ‘that, on current policy assumptions, the government is unlikely to meet its own target that 60 per cent of new dwellings should be built on previously developed land’ (Towards an Urban Renaissance, report of the Urban Task Force, 1999). Events subsequent to publication of the first edition of Land, Development and Design were very soon to show that not only could this target be met, well before the target date of 2008, but it could be significantly exceeded and maintained at a high level of land reuse. With the 60 per cent target having been reached, it could be said that the government’s land-reuse policy for England, focusing new development on previously developed land, turned out to be highly successful. This is confirmed by the statistics on the stock of Derelict and Vacant brownfield land in England, which underwent a year-on-year reduction, from around 40,710 hectares in 2002 to 33,600 hectares in 2007, a fall of 17.5 per cent: see Figure 1.1.

Land area - hectares

1.1

The Development Process

45000 40000 35000 30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0

Total Derelict and Vacant Land and Buildings Vacant Land (land type A) Vacant Buildings (land type B) Derelict Land (land type C)

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Years Figure 1.1 The stock of derelict and vacant land in England, 2002–2008 (source: the National Land Use Database of Previously Developed Land – NLUD-PDL, reproduced with permission)

Land, Development and Design, 2e. By Paul Syms © 2010 Paul Syms

4


The provision of new housing through the reuse of previously developed land and the conversion of buildings exceeded 70 per cent by 2003 and remained at annual rates well in excess of the target, which led to calls from lobbying groups, such as the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) and the Environmental Industries Commission (EIC), to increase the brownfield housing target to 70, 75 or even 80 per cent. Government resisted the lobbyists’ pressures to increase the target percentage, in part due to a recognition that maintaining a higher target might not be achievable in the medium to long term and, also, due to a growing appreciation that land is needed for purposes other than housing, as well as the contributions that brownfield sites may make in terms of flood alleviation and improving biodiversity. The Land Use Change Statistics (LUCS) for 2008 showed that the land reuse figure reached 80 per cent of housing provision in 2008 (provisional estimate, CLG, 2010a), up from 77 per cent the previous year, albeit against a reduced volume of development on greenfield sites. As with the first edition of Land, Development and Design, the primary focus of this new edition is on previously developed – or brownfield – land, but most of the issues raised and topics covered apply equally to both greenfield and brownfield sites. The success of the government’s land-reuse policies must be viewed in context, achieved as it was against the background of a buoyant housing market, with an exceptional rate of new household formation and a renewed willingness – even an excitement – on the part of homebuyers willing to live in the inner urban areas of England’s cities and major towns. Coupled with this was a linked policy, advocated in the Urban Task Force report, to increase the densities at which new housing developments were constructed: see chapter two. Unfortunately, all too often housing developers have attempted to accommodate pressures for increased densities, while at the same time adhering to their conventional housing estate layouts of detached, semi-detached and terraced homes. This they have tried to do by significantly reducing private garden areas, allowing less space between dwellings and with limited parking provision for private cars, with seemingly little consideration for design quality. Frequently, this reduction in external private areas and the ‘cramming’ of building blocks has been accompanied by reductions in the internal sizes of individual dwellings, often manifested in a loss of storage space. Even those dwellings that seek to provide room for the private car may have only a small single garage, often of insufficient size to house a modern car, let alone provide storage for the accoutrements of modern life, such as sports equipment and the tools of the ‘do it yourself ’ enthusiast. So the end result is that the garage is used for storage, with the family car parked on the small driveway, with second or even third cars parked on the pavement or the front garden, as illustrated in Figure 1.2. Linked to the issues surrounding increased densities and the lack of storage facilities in modern dwellings is the problem of storing household wastes and materials for recycling. New housing developments rarely seem to provide adequate storage facilities for the ubiquitous wheelie bins, of which many households have at least two, if not three, with the result that they are left to litter the street scene – not just on collection days but throughout the week; see Figure 1.3. With greater emphasis being placed on recycling, and with fortnightly collections


5

seeming to be on the increase, many households now have to be able to accommodate as many as eight different waste or recycling receptacles:

• • • • • • • •

household waste, for disposal; green garden waste, for composting; glass bottles, possibly sorted by colour; plastic bottles, but not some other plastics; drink and food cans, possibly sorted into aluminium and steel; cardboard; newspapers and magazines, but not old telephone directories; and waxed cardboard fruit juice cartons (in some areas but not others).

Figure 1.2 A modern housing development in Wivenhoe, Essex, with insufficient off-road, or dedicated, car-parking provision. When asked about the inadequate car-parking provision, the site sales agent blamed Planning Policy Guidance Note 3

Figure 1.3 Wheelie bins and cars fight for space on a modern development in Ipswich

6


The question of good design, the provision of adequate storage and matters of good urban design are issues to which we will return throughout this book, with examples of what this author considers to be good and bad in terms of urban design for living our lives in the twenty-first century.

1.2

The phases of redevelopment The first edition of Land, Development and Design mentioned the conflicts that often exist between property developers and planning professionals. To some extent the conflicts are still there, but the intervening years have seen planning courses place greater emphasis on the commercial aspects of the development process. There is also more guidance available, especially when it comes to planning and executing developments on brownfield land. The first edition stressed the complexities of brownfield development, describing an eleven-phase development process, first outlined in Building Homes on Used Land (Syms and Knight, 2000), which had been commissioned by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation to provide developers with real-life case studies of how to overcome contamination and other site problems. Since 2002 the elevenphase process has evolved further, through English Partnerships’ The Brownfield Guide: A practitioner’s guide to land reuse in England, for which this author was the lead author and editor. The phased approach to redevelopment is now contained in the PODD approach – standing for Preparation, Options, Design and Delivery.

Preparation 1.2.1

Phase 1 – Project inception Project inception can come about in a number of ways: for example, the development project may start with a piece of land for which a new use has to be found, or with a development concept for which a site has to be found. It may involve a site that is already owned by a developer or a property company, where the previous use has come to an end, or where an occupier has gone out of business or has relocated. The developer may be actively involved in development activities, as the primary role of a business, or only occasionally engage in development, for example when a building reaches the end of its useful life. Regardless of how the development originates, it is important to achieve an early understanding as to the aims and objectives of the potential project. Usually the aim will be to undertake some form of improvement to the site, in order to satisfy a particular market demand or need, with the objective of making a profit. Even a ‘not for profit’ type of organisation, such as a registered social landlord (RSL), will need to be satisfied that the development is needed and that tenants will be found. It is therefore necessary to develop a good understanding of the market, including:


• • •

7

Market assessment – is there an undersupply of a particular type of property, or is there a perceived gap in the market? How can the market be tested – background research, analysis of recent transactions and of planning applications and existing permissions, surveys, economic analysis, advice from estate agents? Feasibility versus viability – the development may be feasible, in terms of market potential and acceptability to the local planning authority, but will prospective purchasers be prepared to pay the rents or prices necessary to make it financially viable?

The inception stage of the development will include some estimation as to the developable capacity of the site, whether in terms of potential numbers of residential units that can be provided, or the footprint, in square metres, of any commercial buildings. It will be necessary to consider matters such as car-parking provision, loading and unloading arrangements for commercial vehicles, access and egress arrangements, and the likely compatibility (or otherwise) with the uses existing in adjacent properties. It may well be appropriate to consider the massing of the development, the number of floors and buildings and the relationship of their built form to neighbouring buildings. All these considerations should be incorporated into simple sketches, which should not ignore the importance of the public realm as part of, and in relation to, the proposed development. Financial calculations at this stage may be no more than rough estimates, although experienced developers, routinely building from a limited palette of designs, will undoubtedly have very accurate information for the construction costs of their superstructures, leaving sub-structures and infrastructure works as the principal variables. The developer will also have to give consideration to the ownership and legal aspects of the site, including asking the following questions:

• • • • • • 1.2.2

Is the site in a single ownership? Are there any parts where the ownership might be unclear and that might constitute ransom strips? Is there any evidence of anyone having been in illegal occupation of part of the site, as a squatter, who might claim prescriptive rights? Is there any evidence of fly-tipping, or other historic unauthorised use of the site? Are there any tenancies, sub-tenancies or licences in existence? Is there any evidence, physical or legal, of any wayleaves, easements, rights of way or other matters that might affect the ability to develop the site?

Phase 2 – Feasibility assessment The project inception phase will have given the prospective developer a fair idea as to the potential of the site to accommodate the type of development envisaged. It should also have facilitated an initial assessment of the constraints that might hinder, delay or prevent the project from going ahead.

8


The second phase of the process should be undertaken with the objective of giving the developer a much clearer understanding of the site and its potential problems – bearing in mind, of course, that the developer may still not own the site and may even be in competition with others for the acquisition. There may be regulatory issues that need to be addressed, involving surveys to determine the nature of flora and fauna on the site, as well as the need to consider matters such as potential flood risks. Chapter 2 provides the reader with an overview of the policies and regulations that may have to be taken into account. The extent to which the developer will be able to deal with issues such as these will largely depend on the degree of control over the site, for example through an option agreement, or by a less formal exclusivity agreement giving the developer a specified period of time in which to undertake these preliminary investigations and discussions with regulators. An important issue to be considered here is whether community consultation and involvement should be commenced at this early stage. There are significant advantages to involving local communities early on in the process, but there are also drawbacks to be considered. Early involvement will provide the developer with an indication as to whether enthusiastic support is likely to be forthcoming, or whether the community is going to be steadfastly opposed – in which case the developer may decide to abandon the project without investing any more money, or seek a compromise acceptable to all concerned. It is, however, very important to ensure that the community views are truly representative and are not just expressing the opinions of a vocal minority. One drawback of early community involvement is that it gives time for any individuals or groups who may be opposed to the development to muster support for their views. It also results in a loss of confidentiality, with the development proposals being in the public domain, and the potential that a competing developer may try to acquire the site – which is a good reason for not engaging in community consultation until such time as an option agreement, or a conditional contract, has been entered into. Project inception and feasibility are discussed further in chapter 3. 1.2.3

Phase 3 – Site assessment Whilst the feasibility assessment phase is about enabling the developer to form a good understanding about the site and its potential problems in a preacquisition or pre-contract situation, the site assessment phase is about obtaining information as to the physical attributes and deficiencies of the site. In many ways it is the most important phase of all because, if not done thoroughly, it can lead to untold problems later in the project. It is also the point at which the project costs can start to ratchet up, whereas up to this point the developer may have undertaken much of the work in-house or by using retained professionals, whose fees may well have been kept to a minimum in expectation of larger fees later in the project. From this point onwards the developer will be starting to make financial commitments, including site purchase, and so the prudent developer will wish to have a binding legal agreement with the site owner or owners.


9

Chapter 4 considers the process of site assembly, investigation and assessment in detail, but the important point to stress here is that money spent on a good site investigation is rarely wasted. It is also important to note that any investigation that does not include a historical land-use study of the site and a pre-investigation survey, or ‘walk-over’, is of little value. There have been many instances when developers in competitive situations, without a binding agreement with the landowner, have instructed consultants to go on site and ‘dig a few holes’ for the purpose of assessing site conditions. Even highly reputable firms of consultants have been known to succumb to requests of this type, with the aim of pleasing valued clients, but it can prove to be a recipe for disaster. It is therefore most important to undertake a scoping exercise before embarking on the site assessment phase. This would include undertaking a review of all available reports and documents relating to the site, held by the landowner(s) and by statutory authorities. It is also useful to be able to review documents relating to neighbouring properties, if these can be obtained. From this scoping exercise it should be possible to identify gaps in the information, remembering of course that the consultants who prepared reports for the existing owner(s), or a statutory body, will probably be unwilling to provide ‘duty of care’ to the intending developer, and that the site conditions may have changed since the reports were prepared – especially if they are more than a few months old. Identifying and recognising the shortcomings in the existing information should inform design of the requisite site investigation. It is often beneficial to involve the whole of the developer’s professional team in the site investigation design, especially the architect and the engineer, as the scoping study may have identified possible constraints that will impact on later phases of the project. Flagging them up at this relatively early stage will be useful information for the environmental consultant in designing the site investigation.

Options 1.2.4

Phase 4 – Options assessment Even if the local community has not been involved in the earlier phases of the project, by the time it ‘reaches Phase 4 local residents and businesses will be aware that something is taking place and are even likely to have provided information to the data-gathering team, such as the location of unlicensed landfills on the site’ (English Partnerships, 2006, p. 78). Therefore the intending developer should be at, or very close to, the position of having binding contracts with the landowners. This phase should commence with a thorough review of all the information obtained in the first three phases, in order to determine whether the scheme as envisaged at the project inception is in fact still feasible. It is quite probable that some revisions will be required and, if changes are to be made, they should be identified and a process decided upon for resolving issues raised in the review. It is quite probable that the options assessment will highlight issues that fall into

10


any, or all, of three categories – legal and regulatory; market demand and value; and cost implications. Legal and regulatory issues can include environmental regulations, in addition to town planning and highways aspects of the project. For example, part of the site may be contaminated to such an extent that it is not economically viable to remediate, or the regulatory authorities may oppose a planned on-site treatment process and have concerns about the number of vehicle movements that would be involved for off-site disposal. Resolving these issues could involve at least two regulators – the Environment Agency, with concerns over the on-site treatment and possible risks to ground and surface waters, and the local authority’s environmental health department, concerned about noise, dust and disturbance to local residents through both the on-site operations and the off-site vehicle traffic. It is, therefore, most important that both of these regulators be consulted at the earliest possible stage. For some projects it may also be appropriate to involve both the Health and Safety Executive and the Health Protection Agency. Market demand and value are often very difficult to assess. In buoyant, rising, markets any ‘bullish’ estimates as to demand are likely to be absorbed in rising selling prices or rents. In turbulent market conditions that is far less likely to be the case. Prospective developers also run the risk of assuming that just because a similar project was successful, the present project will also achieve the same degree of success. It may well be that the first development soaked up all the latent demand in the area, leaving the present proposal without a market. Construction cost guidance is published and available from a number of different sources, and most aspects of the development project can be estimated with considerable accuracy by in-house quantity surveyors or construction cost consultants. So far as dealing with contamination and the problems of derelict sites is concerned, English Partnerships published a useful Best Practice Note, Contamination and Dereliction Remediation Costs (English Partnerships – BPN27, 2008a). This provides ranges of estimated costs data for four categories of site, affected by differing levels of contamination according to historical land uses. Four different types of future, or end, use are considered – public open space; residential; employment; and mixed use – with high and low water-risk locations considered for both the historical and future uses. For derelict sites the nature of the dereliction problems are classified into non-complex and complex, for both large and small sites, to prepare them for the same four end uses as the contaminated sites. The approach is explained more fully in chapter 8, which also deals with the selection of appropriate remediation methods. All three groups of issues briefly described above will, either singly or in combination, impact upon the timescale for the project. Many months may well have elapsed to bring the project to this stage but, if the options assessment is not undertaken in a competent and professional manner, the end result may be one of considerable delays at later stages in the programme, with significant financial implications. 1.2.5

Phase 5 – Working design of the preferred option Having successfully completed the options assessment, the next phase in the development programme is to produce a working design. This will incorporate


11

all the information obtained in the earlier phases and will, essentially, provide the brief from which the detailed design can be prepared. The working design should address the funding requirements for the project as, although the developer will have had some idea of costs from the inception stage onwards, only now will it be possible to take realistic account of the on-site constraints and external influences that will potentially affect the viability of the project. The working design will reflect any changes in development layout, building numbers, heights and floor areas, brought about through the options assessment. It will take account of guidance issued by statutory bodies, research and other organisations involved with construction and the land, as well as having regard for legal, regulatory and property issues. This is also the stage at which decisions will need to be taken with regard to matters such as the inclusion of public art and the future maintenance of public spaces or any undeveloped parts of the site. For example, should part of the site have been found to be undevelopable, it may be too burdensome to expect purchasers or tenants of the completed development to accept responsibility for maintenance. Equally, the local authority may be unable, or unwilling, to accept responsibility for the undeveloped area. One solution may be for the land in question to be conveyed to the Land Trust – see Box 1.1 – or another similar body. The developer’s ability to deliver the preferred option will necessitate overcoming any physical constraints and environmental issues, together with ensuring that

Box 1.1

The Land Trust1

The Land Trust provides a cost-effective management solution for public spaces and green infrastructure. It manages open spaces, on a long-term basis, for the benefit of the community, with the specific aims of improving the economic, social and health prospects of an area. By taking on the ownership of sites, the Trust can deal with any type of public space, from large country parks to small play areas, from ecologically sensitive nature reserves to streetscape. Its aim is to guarantee that land is managed properly, thus protecting the investment made in creating the open space and ensuring that it continues to have a positive rather than negative effect on the surrounding area. When taking on a site the Trust calculates the amount of funding needed to maintain the site at a base level in perpetuity. This calculation takes into account factors such as routine site maintenance and cyclical site upkeep (fences, access points, tree maintenance). The preferred method of funding ongoing site maintenance is through an endowment or dowry which is invested on site handover, with the annual yield from the investment paying the maintenance cost. The Trust will also consider alternative options such as annual service charging from adjacent housing or commercial outlets, section 106 contributions, asset offsets from property or saleable land or energy generation, etc. The Land Trust seeks to make the most of the spaces it owns and manages, particularly those in, or on the fringes of, urban areas. These spaces can play a vital role in mitigating climate change as well as in the regeneration of the community. Further information is obtainable from www.thelandtrust.org.uk.

1

The Land Restoration Trust changed its name to the Land Trust on 2 June 2010.

12


the necessary service infrastructures are in place. Failure to achieve these will hinder, or even prevent, the project being completed for occupation. ‘Discussions with regulators and service providers will help to finalise the option/working design, and identify any further issues that may have emerged in the meantime’ (English Partnerships, 2006, p. 83). It is unwise to assume that just because the previous activity on a site was a major consumer of electricity, gas and telecoms, all these services will be readily available for the new development. On the contrary, the available capacity may have been committed elsewhere and obtaining new supplies could require extensive off-site works, at considerable cost, with attendant lengthy delays. It is essential, in order for the developer, or other decision maker, to finalise the design brief, that by the end of this phase all these issues have been resolved and the principles of what is to be designed and constructed are fixed.

Design 1.2.6

Phase 6 – Detailed design For the most part the work described in the first five phases, the Preliminary and Options parts of the PODD process, will need to be carried out consecutively, as each logical action follows another. In contrast, much of the work in phases 6 to 8 can be parallel-tracked, although phase 6 will need to be completed before the other two phases can be finalised. In order to achieve a successful outcome, it is most important that the entire project team is involved in taking the project from the working design stage to the detailed design. This includes the people that will be responsible for marketing, letting and selling the development – the press and public relations consultants, the estate agents, the investment sales agent – as well as the architects, engineers, quantity surveyors, environmental consultants, town planning consultants and other professionals. Some of these team members may have had only a fairly minor involvement in the project up to this point, but from here on it is essential that they are all fully involved and understand the roles and remits of the other team members. The detailed design phase will finalise the site layout and the general arrangement of any structures. It will include roadways and footpaths, access points onto the site, junctions with neighbouring roads, public-realm works and landscaping. Construction materials will need to be selected and colour schemes decided upon, which may well result in some differences of opinion among the developer (client), the designers and the marketing team – but all viewpoints need to be considered, even if they are later rejected. For sites affected by contamination or extensive dereliction, decisions will need to be taken as to the most appropriate remediation methods, including the protection of habitats and features such as existing trees and archaeology. The timing of remediation operations may also be an important consideration: for example, bio-remediation may work better in warmer summer weather than in winter, whereas cooler weather may be better for reducing the likelihood of flies and odours if a former landfill site is to be opened up.


13

The detailed design will need to consider the security of the people who will live in, work in or otherwise use the property. Designing out crime, or reducing its likelihood, is an important factor in the design process and is considered in chapter 13. Similarly, careful consideration has to be given to the sustainability of the development, which is reflected in the design standards discussed in chapter 14.

1.2.7

Phase 7 – Regulatory and planning Developers, when asked about the major reasons why development projects on previously developed land are delayed or abandoned, often cite the seemingly conflicting requirements of regulatory and planning authorities. Differences in the type and scope of information required by town planning and environmental regulators has been said to lead to frustrations, resulting in some developers being reluctant to tackle anything other than the simplest brownfield sites. The Home Builders’ Federation, the trade body for housing developers, has lobbied government and the Environment Agency in an effort to streamline the process, or even consolidate the planning and environmental permitting arrangements into a single permit. There are significant problems in combining approvals to undertake development under town planning legislation and permits to undertake remediation, or other environmental works on land, not least in terms of ensuring compliance with European Union directives. Nevertheless, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and the Department for Communities and Local Government (CLG) have acknowledged that having two completely separate systems is not ideal. CLG and Defra were also concerned that Planning Policy Statement 23 – Planning and Pollution Control (PPS 23) – was not being fully implemented by some local planning authorities, and in September 2006 they launched a joint consultation involving 500 interested organisations, key stakeholders and individuals; a summary of the responses was published in April 2007 (CLG. 2007e). This was followed in May 2008 by a letter to Chief Planning Officers, setting out new Model Planning Conditions, intended to support effective implementation of PPS23 policy (CLG, 2008e). These conditions covered the following aspects:

• • •

Site Characterisation – requiring an investigation and risk assessment, in addition to any assessment provided with the planning application, to be completed in accordance with a scheme to assess the nature and extent of any contamination on the site, whether or not it originates on the site. Submission of Remediation Scheme – a detailed remediation scheme to bring the site to a condition suitable for the intended use by removing unacceptable risks to human health, buildings and other property, and the natural and historical environment, must be prepared, such scheme to be subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. Implementation of Approved Remediation Scheme – requiring the approved remediation scheme to be carried out in accordance with its terms prior to the commencement of development, other than that required to carry out remediation, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

14


• • •

Reporting of Unexpected Contamination – in the event that contamination that was not previously identified is found at any time when carrying out the approved development, it must be reported in writing immediately to the Local Planning Authority. Long-term Monitoring and Maintenance – requiring a monitoring and maintenance scheme to include monitoring the long-term effectiveness of the proposed remediation over a stipulated period of years, and the provision of reports, all being subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. Reason (common to all) – to ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors. (based on CLG, 2008e, Appendix 1)

Some of the problems associated with town planning and environmental approvals are considered further in chapter 8. 1.2.8

Phase 8 – Legal, property and funding The first edition of Land, Development and Design mentioned that, ‘Few developers fund projects entirely from their own resources’ (Syms, 2002, p. 10), a fact that became increasingly obvious in the latter part of 2008 and the first few months of 2009 as many publicly quoted developers, both residential and commercial, came close to breaching their banking covenants. This situation is considered further in the following section and in chapter 3, but it is important to note here that the availability of finance, from banks and other funding institutions, is an essential raw material to enable the development industry to function. An adequate supply of land, suitable for development and with all the necessary approvals and permits, is the other essential raw material in the development process. Building materials and skilled labour are also important but, without land and finance, developments simply cannot be undertaken. One of the principal problems associated with land assembly in the United Kingdom, especially previously developed sites in densely developed urban areas, is the multiplicity of ownerships and other interests in the land, often associated as well with small plot sizes. It is therefore often necessary to acquire several small parcels of land in order to assemble a development site and there may be several different legal interests in each of the individual parcels, all with separate owners or beneficiaries. The legal estates in the land could include the freehold interest; a long leasehold of up to the remaining balance of 999 years; occupational leases of, say, five to 25 years’ duration; various underleases and/or licences for a term of a year or less; plus any number of wayleaves, easements and rights of way that may need to be diverted or extinguished. To add to this complexity, while it may be possible to identify the owner of a long leasehold interest in a property that was developed 100 or so years ago, it might not be possible to find the freeholder. The developer may then have to


15

decide whether or not to proceed with the development, with less than ideal title to the site, in the hope that someone with a superior interest does not appear and seek to exercise clauses in the headlease giving the freeholder rights to approve any new development on the site and to share in the proceeds of the project. Although it may be possible to insure against such risks, it is probable that such a challenge could result in delay and a protracted legal battle. The legal implications of these and other issues will have to be taken into consideration as part of the site-assembly process. A prudent developer is therefore unlikely to commit to purchasing part of a proposed development site without being reasonably certain that the rest of the site can be acquired. That is, unless the part of the site to be acquired is already producing income or, as a contingency, can be made to produce income or is capable of development on its own. These points are considered further in chapter 4.

Delivery 1.2.9

Phase 9 – Financial appraisal The financial appraisal should be continually updated throughout all phases of the development, from the initial ‘back of envelope’ figures at the project inception stage, right up to completion of the detailed design, obtaining all the necessary approvals, finalising the site acquisition and signing the funding documentation. It should be thoroughly reviewed at each phase of the project, with more detail being added and with uncertainties being either removed or minimised. Only by undertaking and maintaining a robust financial appraisal can the developer be reasonably certain of achieving a successful outcome. The earliest appraisals may take the form of simple residuals, whereby current construction costs, selling prices and rents are used to calculate the likely cost of the project, including all professional fees and other expenditures, which then have to be deducted from the total selling price of the completed project, net of disposal costs. In an ideal world this should leave a substantial residue, from which the developer can pay for the land and be left with a profit: see Box 1.2. Unfortunately that may not always happen the first time, and several iterations of the appraisal may be required before a workable solution is found. In these early residual appraisals the financing cost of the project may be simply calculated by dividing the total construction cost in two and multiplying by the expected duration of the project, then applying the appropriate finance rate. This approach is used on the premise that the mid-point in the time cycle is also the mid-point in the expenditure profile. However, that is not always the case, as some costs – such as land purchase and professional fees – tend to be loaded more to the front end of the project, while other costs may lag towards the later stages, as contractors are usually paid on valuation certificates prepared at the end of each month during the construction period. In general, the residual appraisal is likely to understate the finance costs and thus produce a smaller residue for land and profit, which would support a conservative approach in the early stages of the project.

16


Box 1.2 A simple Residual Appraisal: site of two hectares for a mixed-use (offices and residential) development Income – proceeds of sales Sales of 50 residential units @ average price of £200,000 5,000 m2 offices let @ £250 per m2 Investment yield on sale 7.5% – Years purchase Gross sales proceeds from offices Total gross value of the development

£10,000,000 £1,250,000 per annum 13.333 £16,666,250 £26,666,250

Deduct costs of sale – letting fees for offices Sales fees for residential units, investment sale of Office, legal fees etc. – total say 3.5% of total gross value Net value of development upon completion

£933,000 £25,733,250

Expenditure – development costs Site preparation and infrastructure estimated at Residential construction costs – 50 units, average size 80 m2 @ £800 per m2 Offices – 6,000 m2, including 20% non-lettable circulation area, @ £1,200 per m2 Professional fees – architect, engineer, project manager town planner, quantity surveyor @ say 12.5% total Planning, Building Regulations, CDM and sundries @ say 2.5% total Total development cost of Development finance, calculated as half project cost for a period of two years @ 7.5% Total cost of project including finance

£3,500,000 £3,200,000 £7,200,000

£1,737,500 £347,500 £15,985,000 £1,198,875 £17,183,875

Residue – the balance available for profit and to purchase the land Net income (development value) minus Expenditure

£8,549,375

Profit required by developer – say 20% of net development value

£5,146,650

Balance remaining for land acquisition Deduct acquisition costs – surveyors’ fees, legal fees, Stamp Duty say total of 8% Maximum price to be offered Or: £1,565,250 per hectare

£3,402,725 £272,225 £3,130,500

As the design evolves and more information is obtained about the site and its ground conditions, and about the infrastructure requirements, building specification and construction costs, the residual appraisal can be replaced by a Discounted Cash Flow Appraisal, which will plot more accurately the expenditure profile on a month–by-month basis and reduce the costs back to Present Value. Several software programs are available to assist the developer in preparing appraisals, such as that produced by Qube Global Software (www.qubeglobal.com); or alternatively the development company can develop its own DCF using Microsoft Excel or a similar spreadsheet package.


17

In addition to a comprehensive review of the financial aspects of the project, whatever method is used, ‘the appraisal process should entail a comprehensive review of the project against agreed guidelines, objectives and policies’ (English Partnerships, 2006, p. 98). These should include:

• • • •

•

•

Affordability – are the borrowing requirements and rates in line with those finalised in Phase 8 of the PODD approach? If not, the review will need to consider whether changes have been fully accounted for. Long-term affordability – has adequate provision been made in respect of future maintenance? This is of particular importance for public-realm projects, but also for other projects where the selection of inappropriate materials could lead to increased costs in the future. Outputs and outcomes – will the project deliver the expected direct outputs, for example in terms of new affordable housing or new jobs, and will it meet longer-term, more indirect outcomes such as contributing to area regeneration? In order that these can be properly assessed, it will be necessary for the appropriate baseline data to be identified in the appraisal process. Risk management and risk transfer – does the project provide adequate means of managing risks, including the ability to make changes if unforeseen problems arise and, if so, can any residual risks be transferred to the end users or investors at the end of the development? If not, the financial appraisal should consider whether any explicit transfer mechanisms are required, for example insurances, and the costs should then be factored in. Project delivery – has the potential for ‘slippage’ in the project been adequately considered, and how sensitive is the market to any delays in delivering the completed development? Brownfield projects carry an inherent risk that unforeseen problems may occur and result in delayed completions. It is therefore important to consider whether, in the event of that happening, market share will be lost to competing developments. Procurement and delivery options – how is the project to be implemented through the construction stages? Many developers have their own preferred ways of procuring the site preparation, infrastructure and construction works, but some sites, owing to their complex nature, require departures from usual practices. The financial appraisal should therefore include consideration as to the most appropriate methods for procurement and delivery, together with any financial implications. (after English Partnerships, 2006, p. 98)

Altogether, the financial appraisal should confirm that all of the objectives and aspirations of the project can be achieved, whether for a private-sector developer, a public body, or for both working in partnership. It should meet the needs of the market or the community, and satisfy the long-term requirements of the investors, regardless of whether those be financial institutions, homeowners, office and factory workers, or the general public as the users of community facilities. The appraisal should then be continually reviewed and updated through the construction period and right up until the last building is sold, occupied or

18


handed over to the end users. Only in this way will it be possible to judge the success, or otherwise, of the project. 1.2.10 Phase 10 – Works procurement and execution Several different procurement options may be available to the developer and their selection will be determined largely by the nature of the development organisation, as well as past experience and practice. Private-sector developers may have their own in-house construction companies; others will often have their own preferred contractors and obtain prices from a select pool of three or four builders. Alternatively, they may negotiate prices on the basis of rates carried forward and adjusted from other jobs. Public-sector developers will be bound by European Commission competition rules and will probably have to advertise contracts for open competition in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU). Both private- and public-sector developers will need to decide whether to let the project in a single tender or in two or more packages. Where significant site preparation and remediation works are required, it is probably preferable to let the groundworks as one main contract to a specialist civil engineering contractor or a specialist site-remediation contractor, with the above-ground construction works forming a separate main building contract. Both private- and public-sector developers may decide to opt for ‘design and build’ contracts, under which the contractor takes responsibility for the detailed design of the development and its delivery, in accordance with a specification setting out the Employer’s Requirements. There are arguments for and against this approach. In some instances it can speed up delivery of the development, but that may be countered by the fact that the contract might entitle the contractor to substitute materials of ‘equivalent design, performance and quality’. Where time is of the essence in completing a new building that might be desirable, as it gives the contractor the ability to use substitute materials without having to go back to the architect and client for approval; the downside, though, is that it could result in changes to the appearance of the building. The design-and-build approach, or ‘early contractor involvement’, could also be of benefit in projects requiring soil remediation, especially if the contractor has devised its own techniques, or even patented technologies, for dealing with contamination. There may be significant advantages in this approach, as the complex nature of many brownfield projects means that it is often difficult to quantify the amount of affected soil that will need to be treated or removed. The risk here, however, is that if the contractor becomes bankrupt while the work is ongoing, it may be difficult to persuade another contractor to take over the project without having been involved with the design or having a full understanding of the methods being employed. The process of selecting tenderers, the tender documents and forms of contract were comprehensively covered in chapter 11 of the first edition of Land, Development and Design, written by Tim Abbott. Most of the points made then are still valid, and it is worth remembering the advice given that the contract


19

documentation must clearly set out what the employer requires and that it is unambiguous. Regardless of the form of contract to be employed, the developer needs to be satisfied, through a pre-qualification process, that the contractor has the relevant experience and competence to undertake the type of project involved. This will entail the developer seeing evidence as to the contractor’s health-and-safety record, quality assurance and training provisions, as well as waste handling and recycling policies, among others. Requirements as to insurances, warranties and matters such as parent-company guarantees or other forms of security will need to be specified in the contract documents. Decisions will need to be taken as to whether the developer requires a ‘fixed’ price from the contractor, or whether there will be provision for fluctuations, as ‘Practitioners must appreciate that the greater the risk transferred from the employer to the contractor, the larger the impact on price’ (English Partnerships, 2006, p. 100). If the entire risk burden is placed on the contractor, then it is almost certain that a higher price will be demanded, whereas if some fluctuation is allowed with, for example, the contractor being incentivised with regard to cost savings, there is potential for both parties to benefit. Risk-transfer mechanisms may impose liquidated damages on the contractor, especially if there is an overrun in the project duration, but these should not be excessively onerous, otherwise relations between the employer (developer) and the contractor could break down. 1.2.11 Phase 11 – Sales and marketing The final phase of the development project is its handover to the occupiers that will live, or work, in the buildings. Their acceptance and satisfaction with the end result is essential in ensuring the success of the development. For private-sector projects this will usually require a sales and marketing campaign. Although shown here as the final phase of the PODD approach, as it marks the ultimate outcome of the project, the input of sales and marketing professionals at all stages is essential, from project inception onwards. The sales and marketing team might include the estate agent, or in-house marketing team; an investment agent if a development is to be leased and the property subsequently sold as an investment; an advertising agent; a public relations consultant; and designers for the marketing materials. The function of this team is to communicate information regarding the development in the most favourable light possible and at the appropriate times. This includes having a contribution to the design stages, which may include commenting on the colours and types of material, from bricks and roof coverings, to wall and floor finishes in office buildings, to the external finishes and landscaping of both commercial and residential schemes. Early interest from potential purchasers and tenants is generally beneficial to developers, although in a rising market some may be unwilling to sell ‘off plan’. For other developers ‘off-plan’ sales or lettings made before work starts on site may be essential in terms of securing the development finance. Larger, publicly quoted developers often secure funding for their activities from a syndicate of banks and covenant to maintain a specific asset-to-loan ratio – see the next

20


section, as well as chapters 3 and 11 – while smaller developers have to negotiate their funding arrangements on a project-by-project basis. When considering development funding applications from smaller developers, the banks will be interested in knowing how much of the development is pre-let or pre-sold, often requiring 50 per cent or more of the development to be under contract before the loan agreement is approved. Good opportunities for public relations-type marketing can be linked to events such as completion of the site acquisition, the approval of planning permission and, especially, start on site. All of these are effectively ‘free’ advertising, usually in the local and trade press, placed by the public relations consultant. Editorial coverage may be possible for newsworthy projects, or the developer might decide to use the ‘advertorial’ approach, which looks similar to editorial content but is actually paid for by the developer. Site fences and hoardings, provided the site is in a prominent location, can provide some of the best means of communicating information about the development, as well as giving a virtually cost-free means of giving updates on progress. For public-sector projects, where normal ‘sales and marketing’ operations are not required, it may still be worthwhile to involve the end users in the design stages of the project. That could be, for example, a member of a community group in respect of a new community building, or office workers helping with the design of a new office building for a public body. Having such organisational representatives involved from early on in the project can help to overcome problems at later stages or following completion.

1.3

The 2008–9 ‘credit crunch’ and its impact on property markets Residential and commercial property markets in the United Kingdom peaked from around the end of 2007 to early 2008. Markets tend to be cyclical, with peaks and troughs around every five years, and so the downturn in values was at first unremarkable. Before long, however, it became apparent that it was part of a wider, global financial problem that was largely driven by the ‘sub-prime’ mortgage market in the United States of America. ‘Sub-prime’ mortgages were loans arranged to high-risk borrowers with imperfect credit ratings, often granted without any form of credit checking, and even to people who were unemployed. Many lenders entered the market when interest rates were low and at first borrowers could afford the repayments, but as interest rates rose they defaulted on the loans and lenders foreclosed, resulting in many properties being vacated. At first the severity of the situation was not fully appreciated: defaults and foreclosures are always expected by lending institutions and, for higher-risk loans such as sub-prime mortgages, a higher-than-average failure rate might be anticipated. Lenders therefore sought to protect themselves by packaging together hundreds, or even thousands, of mortgages and selling them to investors. Banks then repackaged the mortgages and sold them on as ‘prime’ investments. These ‘prime’ investments bore no real resemblance to the mortgages from which they were made up and, as a form of derivative, were more or less impen-


21

etrable to anyone wishing to conduct a due-diligence exercise by investigating the quality of the underlying assets. That is, until the numbers of borrowers defaulting on their sub-prime mortgages increased to proportions way beyond the default levels originally expected. Banks then began to realise that the ‘paper’ they held as collateral for loans to other banks and investors was becoming valueless. In order to protect themselves banks stopped lending to each other, mortgage lenders found themselves unable to lend, even to people with good credit scores, and lending to other business sectors became problematic, with banks often calling in loans or refusing to extend existing facilities. The holders of the derivative instruments that were largely made up of packaged and repackaged sub-prime loans found that their investments were losing so much value that they became known as ‘toxic assets’. Although the problem might have originated in the United States it became one of worldwide proportions, as the derivative investments had been sold internationally, and in the United Kingdom the government had to step in to avert the total collapse of the banking system, initially by nationalising Northern Rock – a building society that had converted to a bank – followed by injecting billions of pounds sterling into other banks, most notably Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds TSB. See Peston (2008, pp. 158–180) for a more detailed explanation. Central banks around the world reduced their base rates to the lowest possible levels; in the UK the Bank of England reduced its base rate to 0.5 per cent, the lowest since the bank was founded in 1694, with the objective of encouraging banks to start lending again and consumers to start spending. The Bank of England also increased the amount of money available in the market, through Quantitative Easing, or the buying in by the Bank of government stocks, or gilts. The impact of the international financial crisis was keenly felt in the UK’s property markets, with serious reductions in value for both residential properties and commercial property investments. The effect this had on property development and investment companies is discussed in chapter 3.

1.4

Summary This chapter has provided the reader with an introduction to the current and historical situation regarding previously developed, or ‘brownfield’ land in England. It has also provided an introduction to the process of redeveloping such land. The author makes no apology for the fact that the central theme of Land, Development and Design is the redevelopment and/or reuse of land that has been used before, such land quite often having undergone several different uses over periods of two hundred years or even longer. Returning brownfield land to beneficial use is a primary focus of government policies and it is generally more complex, more demanding and more time-consuming than the development of greenfield sites. Therefore, if practitioners engaged in the process of redevelopment or land reuse can cope with the problems and issues they will encounter, they surely must also be able to tackle greenfield developments. The chapter has also outlined the situation regarding the adverse economic climate against the background of which this second edition has been written.

22


The global economic problems meant that, during 2008, speculative development slowed almost to a standstill. Commercial property values fell by 40–50 per cent between 2007 and 2009, while many residential developers were more than ever reliant on building publicly funded social housing. We will return to these issues again in later chapters.

2 2.1

Planning Policies and Development

Introduction The twin drivers for planning policies in the United Kingdom as the end of the first decade of the twenty-first century approaches may be described as sustainability and the need to meet future housing needs. The sustainability driver is reflected in the changes made to several Planning Policy Statements during 2009, as discussed below. The housing needs driver is based on the projection – in the 2007 Housing Green paper Homes for the future: More affordable, more sustainable – that the number of households was expected to grow at 223,000 a year, outstripping housing supply by 38,000 units a year. In order to address this shortfall the government made a commitment to build 240,000 new homes a year by 2016, to ‘help ensure we have enough homes for our growing population and work towards the prime minister’s goal of 3 million more homes by 2020’ (CLG, 2007a, p. 22). However, a year later the actual number of houses completed in the twelve months to June 2009 was 136,290, some 48,710 units below the completions estimates used in the Green Paper projections, and a massive 103,710 short of the 2016 target (based on CLG’s quarterly housing reports (CLG, 2009b). Government policies over the period 2003 to 2010 were largely focused on concentrating development in Growth Areas, Growth Points and Eco-towns. The 2003 Sustainable Communities Plan (ODPM, 2003) set out the government’s ambitious plans for housing supply across four Growth Areas in south-east England:

• • • •

the Thames Gateway Milton Keynes–South Midlands (MKSM) London–Stansted–Cambridge–Peterborough (LSCP) Ashford, Kent.

In these areas additional support was to be provided through a significant increase in dedicated resources, over and above mainstream departmental funding, together with major reforms of housing and planning. The Growth Points initiative was announced in 2005, intended as a bottom-up partnership Land, Development and Design, 2e. By Paul Syms © 2010 Paul Syms

24


with local authorities, encouraging them to submit their own sustainable-growth proposals for how they could deliver new housing in a sustainable way above previous growth targets (CLG website, January 2010). Eco-towns are intended to be new towns as exemplar green developments, each with a minimum of 5000 homes. They will be designed to meet the highest standards of sustainability, including low- and zero-carbon technologies and good public transport (CLG website, January 2010). They are described more fully in chapter 10.

2.2

Planning Policy Statements and Guidance Notes The government’s policies relating to town planning in England and Wales are set out in a series of Planning Policy Statements and Planning Policy Guidance Notes, of which Planning Policy Statement 1 – Delivering Sustainable Development, PPS1 (ODPM, 2005a) and its supplements on Planning and Climate Change and Eco-towns are the principal planning policy documents relating to sustainable development. However, it should be noted that, in different ways, most – if not all – Planning Policy Guidance notes and Planning Policy Statements are likely to have an impact in terms of achieving sustainable development. The government said in the Planning White Paper (CLG, 2007d) that it would significantly streamline the planning policy framework to achieve a more strategic, clear and focused framework, so as to provide an improved context for plan making and decision taking at the local level. The latest position regarding this review, as at 29 March 2010, is set out in Table 2.1a below:

Table 2.1a Planning Policy Statements and Planning Policy Guidance PPS/PPG number

Title

Date published

Status

PPS1 supplement

Planning and Climate Change

2007

To be reviewed and consolidated with PPS22. Consultation draft published 9 March 2010, closing date 1 June 2010.

PPS1 supplement

Eco-towns

2009

New PPS published on 16 July 2009.

PPG4

Industrial, Commercial Development and Small Firms

1992

Consultation draft PPS4 published on 5 May 2009, incorporating PPG5, PPS6 and the economic aspects of PPS7. New PPS published 29 December 2009.

PPG5

Simplified Planning Zones

1992

See PPG4.

PPS6

Planning for Town Centres

2005

See PPG4.

PPS7

Sustainable Development in Rural Areas

2004

See PPG4 and PPS9. A review of the remaining policies in PPS7 has still to be programmed.


25

Table 2.1a Continued PPS/PPG number

Title

Date published

Status

PPS9

Biodiversity and Geological Conservation

2005

To be reviewed and consolidated with open space, sport and recreation policy (PPG17) and the landscape aspects of PPS7, together with paragraphs 2.9, 2.10 and 3.9 from PPG20. Consultation draft PPS published 9 March 2010, closing date 1 June 2010.

PPS11

Regional Spatial Strategies

2004

Consultation draft policy statement published on 6 August 2009.

PPG15

Planning and the Historic Environment

1994

Consultation draft PPS15 published on 24 July 2009, updating and combining PPG15 and PPG16. New PPS and practice guidance published 23 March 2010 – see chapter 6. New PPS is numbered 5, not 15.

PPG16

Archaeology and Planning

1990

See PPG15.

PPG17

Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation

2002

See PPS9.

PPG18

Enforcing Planning Control

1991

To form a policy annex to a new PPS Development Management to be published Autumn 2010.

PPG19

Outdoor Advertisement Control

1992

To form a policy annex to a new PPS Development Management to be published Autumn 2010.

PPG20

Coastal Planning

1992

Consultation draft planning policy on development and coastal change published on 20 July 2009. The finalised policy was to be published as a supplement to PPS25, and PPG20 cancelled, but see also PPS9 above. Government aims to publish the finalised policy in Spring 2010.

PPS22

Renewable Energy

2004

See PPS1: Planning and Climate Change supplement.

PPS25

Development and Flood Risk

2006

Consultation draft on amendments to the policy published on 11 August 2009. Amendments published 29 March 2010. Intention now is to consolidate PPS25 and its supplement into an integrated PPS on development and flooding and coastal change.

Notes: review status as at 29 March 2010 (source: CLG website, April 2010)

26


In addition to the policy documents listed above, reviews of the guidance and policy statements listed in Table 2.1b are still to be programmed: Table 2.1b

Planning Policy Statements and Planning Policy Guidance

PPS/PPG number

Title

Date present guidance/ statement published

PPS1 PPG2 PPS3 PPG8 PPS10 PPS12 PPG13 PPG14 PPS23 PPG24

Delivering Sustainable Development Green Belts Housing Telecommunications Planning for Sustainable Waste Management Local Spatial Planning Transport Development of Unstable Land Planning and Pollution Control Planning and Noise

2005 1995 2006 2001 2005 2008 2001 1990 2004 1994

Notes: reviews still to be programmed (source: CLG website, April 2010)

All the current documents referred to above are downloadable free of charge from the Communities and Local Government website. The Planning Act 2008 was granted Royal Assent on 26 November 2008, and introduced a new streamlined system for decisions on applications to build nationally significant infrastructure planning in England and Wales. The Act also introduced further reforms to the town and country planning system and announced the introduction of a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). The Act established the Infrastructure Planning Commission and made provision about its functions. It provides for a new system for determining planning applications in respect of nationally significant infrastructure and covers applications for major energy generation, railways, ports, major roads, airports and water and waste infrastructure. National policy will be set out by Ministers in National Policy Statements (NPSs). The Act also imposes a requirement on project promoters to consult affected parties and local communities prior to submitting an application. Under the Act, local authorities in England and Wales will be empowered to charge a CIL on most types of new development in their area, although they are not required to make such a charge. The Levy will be based on simple formulae which relate the size of the charge to the size and character of the development paying it. The proceeds of the CIL will be spent on local and sub-regional infrastructure to support the development of the area. A Commencement Order came into effect on 6 April 2009, switching on certain powers in the Act and enabling charging authorities to start preparatory work for developing a ‘charging schedule’. It does not mean that charging authorities (generally Local Planning Authorities) can start charging CIL (CLG website, January 2010)1. 1

See Preface to Second Edition for the situation post the May 2010 General Election.


27

The Act also contains amendments to a number of terms and provisions in earlier planning legislation, such as land that is ‘blighted’ by the authorisation of compulsory purchase, or is in a location identified in a national policy statement as suitable (or potentially suitable) for a specified description of development. It also makes a number of amendments in respect of legislation relating to Local Planning Documents, Climate Change and Tree Preservation Orders.

2.3

The Urban Task Force and the Urban White Paper The Urban Task Force was set up in 1998 at the behest of John Prescott, MP, the deputy prime minister. Chaired by Lord Rogers of Riverside, its remit was to develop a framework for the future of urban areas of England, capable of being translated into locally defined solutions, in coordination with the development of government policy. The Task Force set out its Mission Statement as follows: The Urban Task Force will identify causes of urban decline in England and recommend practical solutions to bring people back into our cities, towns and urban neighbourhoods. It will establish a new vision for urban regeneration founded on the principles of design excellence, social well-being and environmental responsibility within a viable economic and legislative framework. (Urban Task Force, 1998, p. 1) In its 1999 report the Urban Task Force made the case for using our scarce land resources more effectively and, in the third of its 105 recommendations, it recommended that government should ‘revise planning and funding guidance to:

• • •

discourage local authorities from using ‘density’ and ‘over-development’ as reasons for refusing planning permission; create a planning presumption against excessively low-density urban development; provide advice on use of density standards linked to design quality.’ (Urban Task Force, 1999, p. 64)

Government accepted this recommendation, which was taken forward in Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 – Housing (DETR, 2000a), since replaced by Planning Policy Statement 3 – Housing, published November 2006 (CLG, 2006b). In advocating higher-density development, the Urban Task Force stressed the importance of linking this with good design and supported the recommendation with an illustration showing how the same high density of 75 units (dwellings) per hectare might be achieved in three different ways; see Figure 2.1. Figure 2.1 ‘illustrates that density per se is not an indicator of urban quality’, as the three sketches show how three different forms of architecture ‘can be built to the same density’. The first example illustrates a high-rise development standing in open space. There are no private gardens or amenities directly available to the inhabitants. There is no direct relationship between the building and the surrounding

28


High rise low coverage 75 units/ha Surface parking

Landscaped gardens

Low rise high coverage 75 units/ha

Noise Noise Children’s play area

Private gardens On-street parking

On-street parking

Key Target a mix of activities Include a variety of house types Community facilities Shops and workspaces Maisonettes Houses Apartments

Private gardens Crèche Landscaped gardens

100

m

Medium rise medium coverage 75 units/ha

Bus stop Work units 0 m and shops 10

Figure 2.1 Relationship between density and urban form (reproduced with permission from Andrew Wright Associates; the Urban Task Force report, 1999, Towards an Urban Renaissance, p. 62)

streets. The large area of open space demands significant levels of investment to manage and maintain it at acceptable standards. The second example is a typical street layout with 2- or 3-storey houses having front and back gardens. Here, the public space is defined by continuous street frontages. The streets form a clear pattern of public space, but the high site coverage minimises the potential for communal spaces and a more varied urban landscape. The third example shows how the same ingredients can be harnessed to create a strong urban focus to a residential community. The buildings, which can be of different heights and configurations, are arranged around a landscaped open space, which contains a community-based facility, such as a community centre,


29

crèche or playground. Commercial and public activities can be distributed along the ground floor, maintaining an active street frontage along the main through-routes. More space is available for private rear gardens, communal areas or a park.’ (Urban Task Force report, 1999, p. 63) In the Urban White Paper, Our Towns and cities: The future – Delivering an urban renaissance, presented to Parliament in November 2000, the government generally accepted the recommendations of the Urban Task Force and highlighted the need for better planning and design, stating: Where there is a need or opportunity for new development in towns and cities we must ensure that it is of the highest quality. In particular we must ensure that it:

• •

makes the best use of the land we have available; and is built in a sustainable way that is sensitive to the needs of people and the impact urban living has on the environment. (DETR, 2000b, p. 43)

The White Paper went on to note that past planning policies had allowed ‘poorquality design and layouts and poor building practices, which in turn create poor-quality places’ – which worked against the principles of sustainable development and could not be allowed to continue. What was needed instead were ‘design and planning policies that promote a better-quality environment and encourage inclusive communities’ (DETR, 2000b, p. 43). The White Paper set out a ‘new vision of urban living’, in which government wanted to see ‘people shaping the future of their community … living in attractive, well-kept towns and cities [with] good design and planning, which makes it practical to live in a more environmentally sustainable way …’ (DETR, 2000b, p. 30). Regrettably, it has to be said that much of the development that followed the Urban Task Force report and the Urban White Paper, and to a large extent typifies the newly built form of English towns and cities in the first decade of the twentyfirst century, is anything but sustainable, or designed and developed with a sense of lasting urban quality. Although, in 1999 Towards an Urban Renaissance was sub-titled ‘Final Report of the Urban Task Force’, in 2005 Lord Rogers asked his colleagues to collaborate in writing a short, independent report ‘designed to stimulate public debate and encourage new thinking’ (The Urban Renaissance Six Years On – introduction by Lord Rogers to Towards a Strong Urban Renaissance (Urban Task Force, 2005). In his introduction to the report, Lord Rogers observed that there had been some notable successes, including:

• • •

For the first time in 50 years there has been a measurable change of culture in favour of towns and cities … ; People have started to move back into city centres … ; … Reuse of brownfield land instead of building houses on greenfield land has been encouraged … ; and

30


•

Building densities have increased, from an average of 25 dwellings per hectare in 1997 to 40 dwellings per hectare in 2005. … from The Urban Renaissance Six Years On: introduction by Lord Rogers to Towards a Strong Urban Renaissance (Urban Task Force, 2005).

Nevertheless, the report observes that ‘The majority of new developments remain poorly designed, with public realm and buildings of a very low quality’, and goes on to state that ‘Too many housing projects are just that – thoughtlessly laid-out groups of cheaply built, fragmented residential units relatively isolated from surrounding communities’ (Urban Task Force, 2005, p. 5). To illustrate the use of poor, or inappropriate, urban design the report included a photograph of a new housing development in a semi-rural location in Cheshire; see Figure 2.2 (Urban Task Force, 2005, p. 6).

Figure 2.2 Although built to higher density, the poor design of this development at Appleton, Warrington, does little to create a sense of place (cited in Urban Task Force 2007, p. 6)

2.4 Urban land-use policies and the National Brownfield Strategy for England The United Kingdom Government’s land-use policies for England have, for the whole of the twenty-first century to date, been focused on reusing previously developed land (PDL), as defined in Planning Policy Statement 3 (see previous section). Otherwise known as ‘brownfield’, this land, often abandoned and uncared for, is now regarded as a valuable national resource. In 1998 the government, through English Partnerships and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) commissioned the first survey of previously developed land. This was the start of the National Land Use Database of previously developed land (NLUD-PDL) which, in part, was a continuation of the Derelict Land Surveys that had been conducted at roughly five-


31

yearly intervals between 1974 and 1993. The scope of the NLUD-PDL was much broader than the earlier surveys, however, as it included both vacant and ‘in use’ land categories, as well as derelict land. Using NLUD, brownfield land can be classified into two distinct groups: land that is unused, lying derelict or vacant; and land that, although still in use, is failing to reach its full potential – with five sub-groups as shown in Box 2.1. Since 2001 the NLUD-PDL surveys have been conducted annually, and are now undertaken by the Homes and Communities Agency on behalf of government. Collectively the surveys comprise an invaluable database, recording changes in brownfield land stocks over more than a decade. Figure 2.3 shows the proportion

Box 2.1 Typology of previously developed land: the five NLUD Land Types (based on CLG, 2006a, Annex C) CATEGORY A – PREVIOUSLY DEVELOPED LAND WHICH IS NOW VACANT: Land that was previously developed and is now vacant, which could be developed without treatments. Treatment includes any of the following: demolition, clearing of fixed structures or foundations and levelling. Excludes land previously used for mineral extraction or waste disposal and that has been or is being restored for agriculture, forestry, woodland or other open countryside. CATEGORY B – VACANT BUILDINGS: Vacant buildings, unoccupied for one year or more, structurally sound and in a reasonable state of repair (i.e. capable of being occupied in their present state). Includes buildings that have been declared redundant or where re-letting for their former use is not expected. CATEGORY C – DERELICT LAND AND BUILDINGS: Land so damaged by previous industrial or other development that it is incapable of beneficial use without treatment, which includes any of the following: demolition, clearing of fixed structures or foundations and levelling. Excludes land damaged by a previous development where the remains of any structure or activity have blended into the landscape in the process of time (to the extent that it can reasonably be considered as part of the natural surroundings), and where there is a clear reason that could outweigh reuse, or it has subsequently been put to an amenity use and cannot be regarded as requiring redevelopment. CATEGORY D – LAND OR BUILDINGS CURRENTLY IN USE AND ALLOCATED IN THE LOCAL PLAN AND/OR HAVING PLANNING PERMISSION: Includes sites currently in use (with the addition of buildings that have been vacant for less than one year), allocated for development in the adopted plan or with extant planning permission where redevelopment has not started. CATEGORY E – LAND OR BUILDINGS CURRENTLY IN USE WHERE IT IS KNOWN THERE IS POTENTIAL FOR REDEVELOPMENT (BUT THE SITES DO NOT HAVE ANY PLAN ALLOCATION OR PLANNING PERMISSION): Includes sites currently in use (with the addition of buildings that have been vacant for less than one year that are likely to be disposed of by their owners for redevelopment or conversion in the next five years). This category depends to some degree on local knowledge and judgement, and information regarding this category is regarded as commercially confidential. Note: categories D and E may be referred to as ‘latent’ brownfield land.

32


27%

29%

Currently in use with permission or allocation for redevelopment Other currently in use with known potential for redevelopment

7% 20%

17%

Previously developed vacant land Vacant buildings

Derelict land/buildings Figure 2.3 Previously developed land by type, 2007 (reproduced with permission of National Land Use Database of previously developed land – Annual Report, 2007, p. 5.)

of land in each category in 2007, when the total amount of PDL recorded in the NLUD survey stood at 62,130 hectares – down one per cent from the previous year. Between 1998 and 2002 the total stock of previously developed land appeared to be increasing, and government decided that a national strategy was required in order to tackle these ‘brownfield’ sites. Several research projects were commissioned in order to gain a better understanding of the problems involved and to determine how these issues were tackled in other European countries. This work was brought together in an interim report Towards a National Brownfield Strategy, published by English Partnerships in September 2003. This report was prepared by English Partnerships in its role as ‘special adviser to the deputy prime minister on brownfield issues’, and set out the rationale for the reuse of previously developed land, as follows:

• • • •

England is the most densely populated country in Europe, and the fourth most densely populated country in the world, Our cities are inherently ‘suburban’ in character, with typically some of the lowest average densities in Europe, Large amounts of land within our urban areas, released as a consequence of structural changes in the economy, remain underutilised, with adverse social and economic consequences, Continuing social changes result in the need for an extra 2.4 million homes in the next two decades. (English Partnerships, 2003 p. 1)

The report identified the contribution that the reuse of land could make towards achieving the desired urban renaissance and the pursuit of sustainable development in England’s towns and cities, although it acknowledged that not all


33

previously developed land should, or could, be reused for urban activities. In consequence, all decisions regarding the reuse of land should reflect site-specific and locational conditions, and the National Brownfield Strategy should address how sites might be brought back into beneficial use. Towards a National Brownfield Strategy noted that a ‘significant proportion of PDL is a product of a past industrial change within the economy and the urban areas’. It went on to say that these changes ‘have resulted in a heritage of vacant and derelict sites for which there is currently no productive or beneficial use’, noting that some sites have ‘remained vacant and unused for considerable periods of time’, resulting in a ‘considerable backlog of underutilised land’ (English Partnerships, 2003, p. 3). Referring to this backlog as ‘lost opportunity’, the report also noted that it can cause material ‘blight’ on surrounding localities and communities. The objectives of urban renaissance and sustainable development were reinforced by a number of government policies and targets, notably:

• • • • •

Nationally, a minimum of 60 per cent of new homes should be developed on PDL by 2008. Similar regional targets, reflecting local circumstances, should be developed by the Regional Planning Bodies and incorporated into the emerging Regional Planning Guidance (RPGs). The Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) and EP should, collectively, reclaim PDL at an annual rate of 1400 ha or more. Nationally, 10 per cent of the estimated 2000 stock of PDL (i.e. some 5,770 ha) should be reclaimed by 2008. Nationally, 20 per cent of the 2000 stock of PDL (i.e. some 11,540 ha) should be reclaimed by 2010. (English Partnerships, 2003 p. 4)

In 2001, the latest year for which data was available for use in Towards a National Brownfield Strategy, around 65,500 hectares of PDL was identified in the NLUD survey of local planning authorities, of which around 44.8 per cent was still in some form of use – ‘latent’ brownfield land. This land was therefore constrained in terms of its reuse, in that it was not readily available for development or other uses. Of the remaining 36,140 hectares of PDL identified in the NLUD 2001 survey as either vacant or derelict, ‘some 23 per cent [was] subject to significant regulatory constraint and some 76 per cent [was] subject to market-driven constraints’, thereby reducing the effectively available PDL to just 7,330 hectares, ‘or just 11 per cent of the total identified stock of 65,500 ha of all PDL’ in 2001 (English Partnerships, 2003, p. 16). From this analysis it became clear that, although there was a significant total stock of PDL, the unconstrained supply across England as a whole was materially reduced to around 2–3 years’ supply, and in some regions PDL availability was as low as 18 months. Also, the differing types of constraint and the processes affecting the reuse of PDL had ‘contributed to the creation of a “hard core” of persistently unused sites’ (English Partnerships, 2003, p. 17), many of which were seen as being ‘too difficult’ for commercial development.

34


The National Brownfield Strategy for England evolved against this background, as the means whereby public policies and development initiatives could be harnessed together in efforts to bring about the reuse of land and enhance the well-being of communities. Following extensive consultation and supported by the results of several research and pilot projects, the National Brownfield Strategy recommendations were submitted to government in May 2007. They set out how government, its agencies, local authorities and a range of stakeholders [would]:

• • •

tackle existing problems of dereliction, particularly in our towns and cities; help to ensure a continuing supply of land, returning PDL to beneficial use; and encourage and promote best practice in the reuse of PDL, which recognises the biodiversity value, or nature conservation importance, of some brownfield sites and is consistent with the principles of sustainable development. (English Partnerships, 2007, p. 4)

The strategy identified a number of issues that had to be addressed if brownfield land, including that classed as ‘latent’, was to be returned to beneficial use. These were grouped into different timeframes, as follows: Immediate pressures

• • • •

complexities and delays in obtaining environmental permits; differing information requirements of town planners and environmental regulators; separate approval processes; and multiplicity of ownerships/interests in the land.

Short- to medium-term issues

• •

the need for area-wide regeneration, instead of tackling individual sites; major expenditure required on infrastructure.

Longer-term issues

• • • •

visual blight; contamination and other adverse ground conditions using relatively low-cost treatments; the need to create the right environment for redevelopment, e.g. through structural landscaping and providing quality green space; and the need to ensure that where there is surplus land it is managed to public benefit. (based on English Partnerships, 2007, p. 7)

The Strategy recommendations recognised that addressing these issues would necessitate the use of many different tools and require a framework of effective policy measures. It therefore proposed six overarching principles and made nine policy recommendations, which were grouped into four strands.


35

The overarching principles and the thinking behind them were as follows:

• • • • • •

When considering the allocation of land for future uses, the principle of ‘redevelop or reuse first’ should take account of PPS9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation (ODPM, 2005b) and PPS25: Development and Flood Risk (CLG, 2008f ), so as to ensure protection of the environment. Delivery agencies should focus primarily on ensuring the reuse of urban land in towns and cities that have the infrastructure capacity and suitability to support redevelopment – so as to ensure the appropriate allocation of public resources, but not ignore brownfield sites that lack infrastructure. Full regard must always be taken of the environmental impact of undertaking remediation work, in compliance with legislative requirements – as there were concerns that this was not always done and there was a need to raise awareness of environmental impacts of remediation decisions. In situations where the cost of full remediation renders redevelopment of the site unsustainable, sufficient work should be carried out to safeguard the local environment and to remove visual blight, so as to benefit communities and not leave unacceptable situations unresolved. The highest design standards should be applied to all brownfield developments, compatible with the economic limitations of the individual site – in order to encourage good design whilst ensuring that brownfield redevelopment projects were not economically compromised by over-ambitious design requirements. Decisions regarding the future use of brownfield land should be made in consultation with local communities2 – so as to ensure that local people are supportive of, and benefit from, regeneration projects. (based on English Partnerships, 2007, p. 8 and the author’s first-hand knowledge)

The inclusion of references to PPSs 9 and 25 in the first principle was necessitated by the need to ensure that brownfield land, or PDL, was not simply assessed in terms of its suitability for development purposes. Many brownfield sites provide homes to valuable, even endangered, species of flora and fauna, in some cases existing or even thriving in the presence of contaminants and, on vacant or derelict sites, in the absence of significant human activity. A high proportion of brownfield sites – derelict, vacant or in use – are situated alongside rivers and other bodies of water, which is not surprising given the importance of waterborne transport from the Industrial Revolution onwards. Thus it follows that brownfield sites can make important contributions to improving biodiversity and flood alleviation; but that does not mean they are totally undevelopable. These issues are considered further in chapter 5.

2

In the original version the sixth principle made reference to decisions being made ‘in the context of the Respect Agenda’, but this was subsequently altered to refer to ‘consultation with local communities’.

36


The rationale behind the second principle was the need to include some degree of prioritisation in terms of the reuse of land. Hence it was decided to concentrate on land in urban areas and, especially, land that had existing infrastructure capacity. This prioritisation was not intended to rule out the provision of new infrastructure to open up other brownfield sites, nor was it the intention to disregard the problems associated with rural brownfield sites. The third principle was intended to ensure that developers and regulatory agencies take account of the full environmental impact of remediation options, before deciding upon a course of action, or before giving regulatory approval. In situations where the environmental cost is considered to outweigh the benefit of the remediation and/or the redevelopment, the minimum work needed to make the site safe, reduce environmental harm and reduce the ‘blighting effect’ to acceptable levels should be undertaken. As mentioned above, in many instances the reuse of brownfield land is constrained by market-related issues. It may well be the case that many sites are so unsuited for redevelopment that they will continue to decay, causing more and more visual and economic blight. The fourth principle seeks to address that issue and to ensure that mechanisms are put in place whereby land can be restored, visually enhanced, and maintained for public benefit. The fifth principle was the most difficult in terms of finding consensus of approach with the different stakeholders that contributed to the National Brownfield Strategy. While there was general agreement that the highest possible design standards should be adopted, there were concerns that in some parts of the country, with weak markets, or on sites with high remediation/preparation costs, high-quality design ideals could not be afforded. There was a risk of seeing the principle being sidetracked into a debate about the costs of design; therefore the principle was intended as a marker to stress the need to do the best achievable, given the specific needs and economic setting of each site. The final principle was intended to emphasise that failure to reflect the needs of families and other members of society will result in the inability to create sustainable communities. In order to ensure the success of a brownfield strategy containing these principles it was necessary to put in place appropriate policy mechanisms, to form the tools to be used for implementation. These are summarised in Table 2.2. In its response to the National Brownfield Strategy recommendations, the government acknowledged that the strategy was beginning to have an effect and stated its aim of continuing ‘the year-on-year reduction in derelict and/or vacant brownfield land’. It also made a commitment to ‘encourage local authorities to continue to identify potential new “latent” brownfield land [and] to ensure that land identified as having development potential is being brought forward for development’ (CLG, 2008a, p. 8). The government’s response also recognised that ‘perhaps the most important lesson … is the need for a more joined-up approach, not just by government departments, but by all the stakeholders involved in brownfield regeneration’ (CLG, 2008a, p. 9). The response document then set out in detail, with case studies, how the government envisaged the Strategy being implemented. At the time of writing, in late 2009, the first Local Brownfield Strategies have been completed and the National Brownfield Strategy is continuing to be implemented.

Table 2.2

The ‘four strands’ of the National Brownfield Strategy for England (based on English Partnerships, 2007, pp. 9–10)

Strand One – identifying, assessing and preparing brownfield land for reuse, to ensure an adequate supply of land when it is needed (Policy recommendations A, H and I) Policy recommendations

Key stakeholders

Process

Compile Local Brownfield Strategies in areas of greatest need – policy recommendation A

Local authorities; Regional Development Agencies; English Partnerships; community groups and local businesses

Fact finding and consideration of reuse viability, to enhance the NLUD data and provide the information base for implementation of the other policy measures

Assess the physical, regulatory and market problems to be resolved to return brownfield land to use – policy recommendation H

Local authorities, English Partnership’s regional teams and the RDAs, supported by English Partnerships’ National Consultancy Unit

Using the information obtained in compiling the Local Brownfield Strategies, undertake detailed assessments

Take steps to prepare the most seriously damaged brownfield sites, making them ready for reuse – policy recommendation I

Local authorities, EPs and the RDAs, supported by the National Consultancy Unit, working in partnership with the private sector

Undertake the remediation and/or stabilisation of land affected by contamination or other physical defects

Policy recommendations

Key stakeholders

Process

Ensure the environment is safeguarded, whilst simplifying, or streamlining, the regulatory procedures – policy recommendation B

Government departments and agencies; industry groups and professional bodies

Encouraging and supporting dialogue between all the stakeholders involved, including the support of trial projects where possible

Recognise that not all brownfield land is suitable for development purposes, but can make a contribution through biodiversity and the alleviation of flood risks – policy recommendation C

Government departments and agencies, local authorities, development agencies, the development industry and conservation bodies

Using data from the Local Brownfield Strategies, ensure that the habitat, amenity space and flood alleviation potential of brownfield sites is fully assessed when preparing appraisals Continued


Strand Two – Safeguarding the environment and ensuring appropriate levels of regulatory control, to ensure the effective and efficient reuse of land (Policy recommendations B and C)

37

38

Continued

Strand Three – Enhancing communities through the removal of blight and by ensuring the long-term maintenance of restored land, contributing to sustainability (Policy recommendations D and E) Policy recommendations

Key stakeholders

Process

Improve local communities by tackling the visual and economic blight associated with small brownfield sites – policy recommendation D

Government departments and agencies, local authorities, community groups and charitable bodies

Through the compilation of Local Brownfield Strategies, identify small sites that are causing blight and prepare groups of small sites for new uses

Secure treatment and long-term maintenance of amenity land and other sites lacking development potential – policy recommendation E

Government departments and agencies, local authorities, community groups and charitable bodies

Provide funding to remove contamination, make land safe, revegetate, provide cycleways and other amenities, and to maintain for future generations

Strand Four – Accreditation and skills, by meeting the need for appropriately qualified and experienced brownfield practitioners, with the public, private and voluntary sectors working together to disseminate best practice (Policy recommendations F and G) Policy recommendations

Key stakeholders

Process

Strengthen and improve the process of preparing land for reuse, through the accreditation of suitably qualified, experienced and trained practitioners – policy recommendation F

Government departments and agencies, local authorities, English Partnerships, the Academy for Sustainable Communities, universities, colleges, professional bodies and trade associations

Ensure a more ‘joined up’ approach to brownfield land reuse on the part of Government and other stakeholders – policy recommendation G

Government departments, agencies, trade associations, professional bodies, lobby groups and representative organisations

Support and expand the existing Specialist in Land Condition (SiLC) scheme. Support work to develop a robust cadre of accredited professionals. Identify need and support development new courses and subject development Building on the consultation process established in the National Brownfield Strategy, create a new National Brownfield Consultative Group, representing a broad spectrum of stakeholders

Note: The roles and responsibilities of English Partnerships in delivering the National Brownfield Strategy passed to the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) on 1 December 2008. The HCA now has the lead role in delivering the strategy. Also on 1 December 2008 the Academy for Sustainable Communities became the HCA Academy and was subsequently fully absorbed into the skills division of the HCA.


Table 2.2


2.5

39

The housing Green Paper and land for housing Although the objective of the National Brownfield Strategy for England is to ensure the effective and efficient reuse of land, whilst taking full account of environmental and ecological issues, it cannot be denied that one of the principal aims of the strategy is to ensure a supply of land for housing use. Of the total built area of England, 70–80 per cent is used for housing purposes and, with new household formation expected to continue increasing, it follows that a significant part of the demand for development land is housing-related. Between 1997 and 2007 some ‘£20 billion was invested in making social homes decent for tenants’ (CLG, 2007a, p. 15), with the number of households living in non-decent social homes falling by more than one million (English House Condition Survey, cited in CLG, 2007a, p. 15). Over the same period the number of households waiting for social housing rose from one million to 1.6 million (CLG, 2007a, p. 20), as the number of households had grown and as more families found that they could not afford to purchase a home. The projected growth in household formation was attributed to a number of different factors, including people living longer, marrying or co-habiting later, and an increasing divorce rate. These all contribute to an increase in single-person households. A further factor contributing to household growth was inward migration into the UK, many of the migrants being single. In setting the objective of delivering two million homes by 2016 and three million by 2020, the government assumed that housing supply would rise over time towards a target of 240,000 new homes a year in 2016 and would continue at that rate over the following four years. This would include an increased target of 45,000 new social homes a year by 2010–11, with a goal of increasing to 50,000 social homes a year. It expected that the two million new homes to be delivered by 2016 would include the following:

• • • • •

1.6 million new homes that were already in Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS); plans in place included 650,000 homes in Growth Areas; 150,000–200,000 additional homes in RSS and plans under consideration in 2007, including many smaller sites and urban area schemes, together with further, partial RSS reviews where needed; 100,000 extra homes in 45 towns and cities that made up the 29 New Growth Points announced in 2006; 50,000 new homes in an additional round of New Growth Points, including the North; and 25,000–100,000 homes in five new eco-town schemes, designed to be able to reach zero-carbon standards. (Based on CLG, 2007a. p. 22)

The Housing Green Paper went on to say that this planned growth in housing provision would be supported by:

•

Increased infrastructure support – in addition to the Community Infrastructure Fund, funding for Growth Areas, New Growth Points and eco-towns [would] double by 2010–11.

40


• • • • • • • • •

Reviews of regional plans – including sub regional reviews, to support ecotowns and New Growth Points by 2011, so that plans reflect the need for 240,000 homes a year by 2016. A new Housing and Planning Delivery Grant to act as an incentive, rewarding councils that deliver high levels of housing and have identified at least 5 years’ worth of available land for homes and a further 10 years’ worth in plans, as required by planning policy. New guidance to help local councils identify enough land to deliver the homes needed in their area for the next 15 years [from 2007], as required by planning policy for housing (PPS3). Action to permit applications for housing where councils have not identified enough land. Action to encourage private developers to bring forward housing more quickly, and reduce any incentive to hold land back; More use of public-sector land, with a new target of 200,000 new homes to be delivered by 2016. Better use of disused land, as the HCA supports councils in drawing up local strategies to maximise development on brownfield sites. Better use of existing buildings: bring long-term empty homes back into use; and … consult on ways to incentivise action on empty homes as part of the Housing and Planning Delivery grant. Creation of the new homes agency – the Homes and Communities Agency – to build on the successful delivery of programmes by the Housing Corporation, English Partnerships and the Department of Communities and Local Government. (based on CLG, 2007a, p. 23)

In order to achieve these ambitious targets it is necessary to have a sufficient supply of land suitable for housing development. As mentioned above, the government aimed, in part, to ensure the supply through the release of land owned by the public sector. It estimated that central-government-owned surplus land, with the potential for 100,000 new homes (CLG, 2007a, p. 36). A review of land held by government departments and agencies was expected to identify the availability of further land, resulting in the setting of a target for ‘200,000 new homes to be delivered on surplus public-sector land by 2016’ (CLG, 2007a, p. 35). English Partnerships, as the regeneration agency for England, was given a major role in supporting central government in bringing forward surplus sites, whether by acquiring them directly or taking an agency role, ‘managing or reviewing disposals, to ensure that minimum agreed standards for development are achieved’. English Partnerships’ standards for development projects in which it was involved included:

• •

a minimum of 50 per cent affordable homes, including developer contributions through planning obligations; high design and environmental performance standards;


• • •

41

all homes to meet a minimum standard of Level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes; defined development start and completion dates to prevent landbanking; limits on the scale of buy to let sales on each site. (CLG, 2007a, p. 37)

The task of delivering the government’s housing agenda is now the responsibility of the Homes and Communities Agency, working in partnership with other agencies, registered social landlords (RSLs) and the private sector. In order to ensure an adequate supply of land to meet the housing growth projections, the Department for Communities and Local Government published, at the same time as the Green Paper, Practice Guidance to enable local planning authorities to prepare their Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessments (SHLAAs). These assessments are ‘a key component of the evidence base to support the delivery of sufficient land for housing to meet the community’s need for more homes’ (CLG, 2007b, p. 4) and are required by national planning policy, as set out in PPS3: Housing (CLG, 2006b). The primary roles of the SHLAAs are to identify sites with potential for housing, assess that potential, and assess when they are likely to be developed. Local planning authorities are required to:

• • • •

identify specific, deliverable sites for the first five years of a plan. These sites should be ready for development; identify specific, deliverable sites for years 6–10 and, ideally, years 11–15 to enable the plan to be topped up with new sites; where it is not possible to identify specific sites for years 11–15, the SHLAA should indicate broad locations for future growth; and not include an allowance for windfalls in the first 10 years of the plan, unless there are justifiable local circumstances that prevent specific sites from being identified.

Preparation of the SHLAAs is closely linked to the Local Brownfield Strategies, prepared under the National Brownfield Strategy, as the majority of housing is expected to be developed on previously developed land. The Local Brownfield Strategies therefore provide the evidential support for local authorities’ housing plans. The requirement not to include windfall sites in the first 10 years of the plan is particularly important, as local planning authorities may hold confidential information, through their NLUD surveys, about ‘in use’ brownfield sites that might become available for redevelopment within the plan period, but cannot be cited as specific sites. Such sites would be recorded within land type E of the NLUD survey, as land with redevelopment potential but no planning status, with only a broad location indicated in the SHLAA.

2.6

The London Brownfield Sites Review The National Brownfield Strategy and the requirement for local planning authorities to prepare Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessments (SHLAAs) apply

42


to the whole of England, but nowhere are they more important than in London, where there exists the greatest pressure for housing land. Recognising this, the London Development Agency and English Partnerships agreed in 2007 to embark on a joint project, to review the supply of brownfield land in London. The review comprised three parts:

• •

•

A Good Practice Guide for brownfield land reuse (downloadable from www.londonbrownfieldsites.org/Content/bestpracticeguidance.aspx) – practical solutions and case studies for redeveloping brownfield land to provide London-specific guidance for use alongside The Brownfield Guide: A practitioner’s guide to land reuse in England (English Partnerships, 2006); An inventory of brownfield sites, with extensive site-specific information along with interactive mapping of brownfield land (above 0.1 hectares) in London, as these small sites have the ability to make significant contributions to housing land availability in densely developed areas. By comparison, the NLUD surveys give local authorities the ability to introduce a minimum reporting threshold of 0.25 hectare; and An Analysis Report summarising the work undertaken within Stage 2 of the London Brownfield Sites Review, outlining and examining the number, extent and nature of the sites identified at the time the database was launched. There will also be an Action Plan that will be updated regularly as the underlying trends affecting London’s brownfield sites change.

The outputs from this joint project are available to view on-line at www.londonbrownfieldsites.org. Different levels of access are available, depending on whether the registered user is a member of the public, a developer, a local authority or one of the partner organisations. At the launch of the database, in October 2009, the ownership of brownfield sites in London was found to be as shown in Table 2.3a, and the distribution of sites between the different NLUD land types was as shown in Table 2.3b. The London Brownfield Sites Review has resulted in the creation of a valuable resource, both in terms of policy making and also for the identification of potential development sites. Lowering the minimum site size threshold from 0.25 ha resulted in additional small sites being identified, as shown in Figure 2.4; 34 per cent of the total area of brownfield land in London is in sites no larger than half a hectare in area.

Table 2.3a Ownership of brownfield sites in London Ownership Category

London Brownfield Sites Database October 2009

Private Local Authority Other Public Multiple ownership Unclassified

63 per cent 7 per cent 13 per cent 3 per cent 13 per cent


43

Table 2.3b Distribution of brownfield sites in London by NLUD land types – October 2009 2007 NLUD

NLUD Category

LBSD Launch

11 per cent 10 per cent 5 per cent 62 per cent

A – Vacant land B – Vacant buildings C – Derelict land D – Occupied but with planning permission or allocated for redevelopment E – Occupied, without planning permission or allocation for redevelopment but considered to have development potential

4 per cent 4 per cent 3 per cent 80 per cent

12 per cent

9 per cent

2% 29% 32% 1 ha 21%

Figure 2.4

2.7

London brownfield sites by area (ha)

Summary As can be seen from the review of policy and legislation in this chapter, the last decade has been one of substantial changes in terms of both planning and landuse policies. Planning policies have moved from guidance to more mandatory statements, supported by supplementary guidance where necessary. Land-use policies have focused even more strongly on reusing previously developed land, albeit with a recognition that in the areas of highest demand, primarily the southeast and parts of the eastern regions of England, development on greenfield sites cannot be avoided. In part the drivers have come from the impacts of European legislation and in part from recognition that Britain, and England in particular, is facing an increasing under-supply of housing, against a background of increasing household formation. Environmental issues have also gained importance over the same period, together with recognition that, if we are going to use our land more effectively,

44


good design has an essential role to play. This still has to achieve full acceptance when viewed against some recent developments that have produced high densities – supposedly in response to government policies, but without attaining anything in terms of design quality.

2.8

Checklist

• • • • • •

Intending developers need to ensure that they are fully aware of the latest policies and guidance that may affect their proposed developments. Ensuring the most effective and efficient use of previously developed land is important, but not at the cost of design quality or environmental considerations. Town centre or inner urban developments are likely to be given planning preference over out-of-town or fringe locations, which may be an important consideration for the proposed project. Transport, especially sustainable alternatives, should always be considered when preparing development plans. Similarly consideration should also be given to the introduction of sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS). Windfall sites may not be included in housing land allocations, but can make important contributions, although change of use may be required.

3 3.1

Project Inception, Developers and Feasibility

Introduction Land is the essential ingredient of any property development project, the raw material without which the development industry cannot function. It follows therefore that developers, especially those in the residential sector, will be fiercely competitive in seeking out and acquiring prime development sites. In buoyant markets it is possible for developers to add significant value to their land stocks through obtaining planning permissions, improving development densities and even trading undeveloped sites. In weak and declining markets the reverse is also true, with reducing values potentially placing previously strong companies at risk of breaching lending covenants with their bankers and other funding institutions. Against this background developers have a need to plan their future production, whether it is of new homes, offices, retail units or industrial floorspace, in such a way as to meet demands that may exist two, three, five or more years into the future. Development is not the type of activity where it is easy to increase or decrease production at short notice and it may take several months to respond to changes in market conditions. Increase in demand for new construction may result in shortages of labour, sub-contractors and materials, whereas marked reductions in demand may result in developers having to mothball projects, even when construction has already started – see Figure 3.1 – or in having to lay off their workforce at all levels. Given the potential for significant changes in market demand in the months or, more probably, years leading up to the physical start on site of a development, it is important that developers incorporate some degree of flexibility into their projects right from the inception stage. This flexibility may vary in extent from a fairly simple sensitivity analysis of the ‘what if ’ variety, which takes account of price fluctuations of, say, plus or minus five per cent, to more radical plans involving halting or redesigning schemes part way through their development period. The ability to respond to increase in demand will be determined by factors such as planning permissions on land held in land banks, whether already owned or under option, whereas slowing down may depend on the developer’s contractual position with contractors or sub-contractors. The situation may also be governed Land, Development and Design, 2e. By Paul Syms © 2010 Paul Syms

46


Figure 3.1 Concrete frame of a mothballed development in Ipswich

by the developer’s responsibilities under section 106 agreements, including requirements to provide social housing and community facilities. Financing arrangements also have a bearing on the developer’s ability to increase or decrease the rate of development. Proposals to significantly increase the rate of production may be regarded by the developer’s financial backers as potentially overextending the company’s resources, including its management capabilities, and so the funding institutions may seek to control the rate of expansion by controlling the money supply. In a market downturn the developer may have already acquired the site or have agreed a payment schedule with the landowners, and either be making interest payments or accumulating even more debt in the form of ‘rolled up’ interest. The developer then has to decide whether or not to increase the debt, and associated risk, by proceeding to build out the development, or to wait until there are signs of an upturn in the market. In extreme cases, where the developer is contractually bound to purchase the site but the acquisition has yet to be completed, it may be necessary to make a painful decision to withdraw from the transaction, forfeiting any deposit that has been made and writing off the design and planning costs. Property markets tend to be cyclical, with peaks and troughs, so decisions such as these call for very careful judgements on the part of the developer. Build too early and the development will remain unsold or unlet, possibly gaining a reputation as a ‘white elephant’. Build too late and the development will miss the peak of the market, coming on stream in the downturn of the cycle.

3.2

Recession and property values ‘The recession has been one of the deepest since 1929, but [at the time of writing in September 2009] there are clear signs that recovery may be sooner than predicted three months ago. … A combination of monetary and fiscal expenditure


47

(together with quantitative easing) has averted a major crisis, but left a legacy of problems:

• • •

Rising unemployment, weak consumer expenditure and a lack of public sector finance will slow down the recovery. Rising commodity prices (especially oil and food) – driven by demand from the emerging Asian economies and crop failure/climate change – will dampen the economic recovery. Retail price inflation is unlikely – although it will be slightly higher in the USA and UK and will hold down the value of the US$ and £ sterling.’ (King Sturge, 2009)

The above assessment by one of the UK’s largest firms of property consultants, with 100 owned or affiliated offices around the world, goes on to suggest that there will be a two-speed economy, with low-income households widening the wealth differential. This will have significant implications for property markets. House prices in the UK peaked in the third quarter of 2007 (fourth quarter on a seasonally adjusted basis) and were followed by six quarters of decline, which saw nominal house prices across the country fall by an average of £34,422 (18.7 per cent), before showing a slight upturn in the second quarter of 2009 – see Figure 3.2. In January 2010 both Halifax and the Nationwide Building Society reported that there had been a ‘near 6 pc increase in house prices in 2009’, and a ‘survey by Rightmove, the property website, found that 53 pc [of people surveyed] in the

£200,000 £180,000 £160,000 £140,000 £120,000 £100,000 £80,000 £60,000 £40,000

Q4 2009

Q3 2009

Q2 2009

Q1 2009

Q4 2008

Q3 2008

Q2 2008

Q1 2008

Q4 2007

Q3 2007

Q2 2007

£0

Q1 2007

£20,000

Figure 3.2 House prices in the United Kingdom 2007–2009 (not seasonally adjusted) (source: Nationwide Building Society House Prices data, reproduction with permission)

48


UK believe house prices will rise over the next 12 months, compared with 10 pc at the beginning of [2009]’ (Monaghan, 2010). Figures 3.3 and 3.4 show the long-term and medium-term trends in ‘real’ house prices, that is after adjusting for inflation, from which it can be seen that, in spite of the severity of the post-2007 fall there is still a strong upward trend for the first decade of the twenty-first century. Figure 3.4 also shows that the recent decline in prices has had the effect of totally closing the gap between real and nominal prices, whereas prior to 2008 real prices were outstripping nominal ones – i.e. house prices were growing faster than inflation.

£210,000 £190,000

Base : 2009 Q4 Trend from 1975 Q1 to present Trend = c2.9% per annum

£170,000 £150,000 £130,000 £110,000

Trend Real House Price

£90,000 £70,000

2009 Q4

2007 Q4

2005 Q4

2003 Q4

2001 Q4

1999 Q4

1997 Q4

1995 Q4

1993 Q4

1991 Q4

1989 Q4

1987 Q4

1985 Q4

1983 Q4

1981 Q4

1979 Q4

1975 Q4

£30,000

1977 Q4

£50,000

Figure 3.3 ‘Real’ house prices 1975–2009 (source: Nationwide Building Society House Prices data, reproduced with permission)

£250,000 £200,000 £150,000 Nominal house prices £100,000

Real house prices Trend in real house prices

£50,000

2009 Q3

2009 Q1

2008 Q3

2008 Q1

2007 Q3

2007 Q1

2006 Q3

2006 Q1

2005 Q3

2005 Q1

2004 Q3

2004 Q1

2003 Q3

2003 Q1

2002 Q3

2002 Q1

£0

Figure 3.4 Inflation-adjusted house prices, United Kingdom 2002–2009 (source: Nationwide Building Society House Prices data, reproduced with permission)


49

100

80

80

60

60

40

40

20

20

0

0

London-West End

Paris

Frankfurt

Madrid

2009

100

2008

120

2007

120

2006

140

2005

140

2004

160

2003

160

2002

180

2001

180

2000

Index 2000 = 100

In the commercial sector, the market downturn has been felt just as keenly as in the residential sector. Indices of prime office rents in major cities across Europe have shown a marked decline since peaking in 2007–08 and in most cases are now below their 2001 levels, with Frankfurt showing an almost continual decline since 2002 following failure to recover from the ‘Dot.com’ burst in 2000 (King Sturge, 2009); see Figure 3.5.

European Average

Figure 3.5 European Prime Office Rental Growth Index, 2000 to second quarter 2009 (source: King Sturge, 2009, reproduced with permission)

Property investment yields have shown significant change post-2008, as investors moved into perceived safer forms of investment, with yields for prime offices in the City of London – the rate of return required by investors – being between 7.5 and 8 per cent, but by the middle of the year this had improved to between 6.5 and 7 per cent (King Sturge, 2009). Figure 3.6 provides an indication of the comparative performance of different types of investment – property, equities and gilts – over the ten-year period from July 1999 to July 2009. As might be expected, the volatility in commercial property markets, both in terms of rental values and investment yields, has had a considerable impact on the share values of Britain’s major, publicly quoted property companies, which will be discussed later in this chapter.

3.3

Land for development The extent to which developers are prepared to make significant financial commitments to land acquisition will depend on a number of factors, including planning permission, the availability of off-site infrastructure and, as discussed above,

50


40 30 20

% p.a.

10 0 –10 –20 –30

Ju

l9 9 Ja n 00 Ju l0 Ja 0 n 01 Ju l0 Ja 1 n 02 Ju l0 Ja 2 n 03 Ju l0 Ja 3 n 04 Ju l0 Ja 4 n 05 Ju l0 Ja 5 n 06 Ju l0 Ja 6 n 07 Ju l0 Ja 7 n 08 Ju l0 Ja 8 n 09 Ju l0 Ja 9 n 10

–40

Property

Equities

Gilts

Figure 3.6 Comparative performance of property, equities and gilts 1999–2009 (UK commercial property investment market total returns (rent + capital change) % pa to August 09) (source: King Sturge and IPD Monthly Index, September 2009)

the state of the market. For example, if land already has planning permission with frontage to a main road in which all services are available, and the market is strong, developers will compete with each other to acquire the site. In such situations the potential for a developer to make money out of the land itself, adding value to the site, is limited except for any general enhancement to land values in the area. That is, unless the developer can see potential in changing the nature of the approved development, for example through increasing density or changing the mix of unit types. Even then, provided the landowner has been well advised, the scope for increasing the return from the land is limited. Achieving value out of the land itself and not simply from the construction process is an important part of property development and, for the most part, developers prefer to identify sites on which they can work up their own development concepts, rather than relying upon work undertaken by someone else. Whilst therefore developers may be prepared to acquire land with planning permission, in order to maintain a rate of production, they will also be seeking out land without planning permission. These may be sites that have been allocated for development at some future date, or perhaps even have no planning status in Local Development Frameworks, and possibly even lacking nearby road or service infrastructures. They are, however, less likely to spend capital or debt financing on such sites, but instead will enter into option agreements or conditional contracts. It follows that land with planning permission and infrastructure, acquired in a competitive situation, will be more costly than nearby alternative sites where development may be several years away and require considerable expenditure to design the scheme and obtain planning permission. Therefore developers will seek to secure land well in advance of requirements, obtain planning permission them-


51

selves, or they will seek to improve existing permissions and ensure that they are not competing with other developers for the right to develop that land. Land banks can therefore be divided into two categories: those that are ‘current’– usually land that has planning permission, either owned or controlled by the developer, ready for immediate or short-term development; and ‘strategic’ – where planning permission does not yet exist, major infrastructure may be required and development may be several years into the future. 3.3.1

Residential development The first edition of Land, Development and Design included a review of the land banks held by ten of the UK’s largest house builders, who between them had completed 43,184 homes in their latest reporting period,1 equating to 33.34 per cent of all housing completions in England in 2001. The published accounts of these ten house builders showed that they had sufficient land in their current land banks to build a total of more than 153,000 new homes, or 3.55 years’ supply at their 2001 rates of production. The same ten companies held, or controlled, enough land for a further 190,000 units, or 4.4 years’ additional supply. By 2009 some of the ten companies in the previous review were no longer in existence – Persimmon had acquired Westbury; Wimpey had merged with Taylor Woodrow; Alfred McAlpine had been acquired by Carillion and had ceased speculative house building; Crest Nicholson had been acquired by Castle Bidco (a joint venture between Bank of Scotland and West Coast Capital); and Barratt had acquired Wilson Bowden (including David Wilson Homes). Most of the companies issued gloomy reports for their financial years ending in 2009, with several reporting reduced completions and even trading losses. As will be appreciated from the downturn in the housing market and the extensive restructuring and mergers of the largest companies, it is not possible to produce a table of completions and land banks of the ten largest house builders that is directly comparable to the one in the first edition, but Table 3.1 provides the reader with an indication of the position in late 2009, see pages 66–7. As can be seen from Table 3.1, the total number of housing completions by these ten major builders, as stated in their latest available reports, was 54,569 units, equating to 40 per cent of all completions in England for the twelve months ended 30 June 2009. This shows these major house builders having a larger market share than in 2001, although four of the companies were not included in the previous list. Overall their housing completions were down by 26 per cent on the previous year, with only one developer, Crest Nicholson, reporting an increase in completions – although it should be noted that the latest available accounts for that company were for a slightly earlier period, before the full effect of the market decline was felt. The current land banks – mainly those that are owned or controlled, with planning permission – of the ten house builders in Table 3.1 amounted to 318,705

1

Most of the data was based on the 12 months ended March 2001, and the oldest data was for the calendar year to December 1998.

52


plots, up by 108 per cent from the 2001 analysis. That is no doubt due in large part to the restructuring and consolidation of the industry that has taken place in the intervening period. In contrast, their strategic land banks show a total reduction of 80,584 plots, or 28.31 per cent, owing to developers (a) curtailing their land-acquisition programmes; and (b) selling off some of their longer-term holdings in order to reduce borrowings. In several cases developers have reduced their employee numbers by as much as 50 or 60 per cent, including land buyers; others have merged operations and closed offices; but, at the same time, some developers have responded to the market downturn and credit crisis by raising additional capital in order to buy new land. There were an estimated 16,300 housing starts in England in the December quarter of 2008, down 27 per cent on the previous quarter and 58 per cent lower than the December quarter of 2007 (CLG, 2009b and earlier reports); see Table 3.2. As can be seen from Table 3.2, housing completions in England reached a peak in the fourth quarter of 2007 at 48,420, coinciding with the seasonally adjusted peak in house prices recorded by the Nationwide Building Society. Completions then declined for five consecutive quarters to a low of 29,210 in the first quarter of 2009, a decline of almost 40 per cent. The decline in new housing starts was even more dramatic and started earlier, falling from a peak of 48,180 starts in the first quarter of 20062 to 15,850 in the fourth quarter of 2008, a drop of 32,330 units or 67 per cent from the peak. There are of course always seasonal fluctuations in terms of starts and completions, taking account of both the weather and market variations. However, as may be seen from Figure 3.4, they usually follow similar trends, with completions lagging starts, as might be expected. The severity of the decline in the industry between 2006 and mid-2009 is starkly illustrated in Figure 3.7. 3.3.2

Commercial development The first edition of Land, Development and Design did not include a review of commercial development companies and property investment companies but, given the impact of the recession on rents and yields, it is appropriate to consider how major property companies have been affected. Giles Weaver, the chairman of property development company Helical Bar plc, opened his annual report on 19 June 2009 with the words, ‘The year to 31 March 2009 has been one of the most tumultuous periods in the last century, with the global banking crisis and wider economic woes creating unprecedented problems for the property sector’ (Helical Bar, 2009). He then went on to say that ‘Falling capital values, falling rental values and severe constraints on borrowing have been the backdrop against which companies in the property sector have operated,’ as the company announced an increase in development profits, exceeded by write-

2

There had been an even higher peak of 49,210 in the second quarter of 2005, but this may be regarded as exceptional, being significantly higher than new starts in either the two quarters preceding or the two quarters following.

Table 3.2 Housing starts and completions in England, from 1st quarter of 2006 to 4th quarter of 2009 (source: Communities and Local Government, Live Housing Statistics, Table 213, February 2010) Started Registered Social Landlords

Local Authorities

All Dwellings

Private Enterprise

Registered Social Landlords

Local Authorities

All Dwellings

Year totals

43,300 42,740 36,000 37,340 159,380

4,740 4,210 3,840 4,750 17,540

140 90 30 30 290

48,180 47,040 39,860 42,120 177,200

32,670 38,350 32,340 36,550 139,910

4,930 4,840 5,270 5,620 20,660

120 60 60 50 290

37,720 43,250 37,670 42,220 160,860

Year totals

39,170 38,940 38,630 34,000 150,740

4,060 3,740 4,000 3,760 15,560

50 70 30 10 160

43,270 42,760 42,660 37,770 166,460

38,450 38,490 33,950 41,590 152,480

6,010 4,600 4,680 6,810 22,100

90 170 60 20 340

44,540 43,260 38,680 48,420 174,900

P P P P Year totals

28,850 27,960 17,370 12,190 86,370

4,310 5,800 4,930 3,500 18,540

80 120 10 160 370

33,250 33,880 22,310 15,850 105,290

30,720 31,730 25,800 28,000 116,250

7,010 5,640 5,590 7,470 25,710

50 140 60 180 430

37,780 37,510 31,450 35,660 142,400

P P P

13,640 17,770 21,600 15,680 68,690

4,620 4,580 4,930 3,980 18,110

20 50 30 60 160

18,280 22,390 26,550 19,720 86,940

22,180 24,760 20,780 24,810 92,530

6,840 5,730 6,510 6,160 25,240

180 60 100 40 380

29,210 30,550 27,390 31,010 118,160

2007 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

2009 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4*

Year totals

53

Notes: 1. For detailed definitions of all tenures, see Definitions of housing terms on CLG Housing Statistics home page. 2. Figures in this table are not seasonally adjusted; for seasonally adjusted house figures, see live table 222 in the Housing statistics section of the CLG website. 3. Totals may not equal the sum of component parts due to rounding to the nearest 10. * Q4 2009 figures are provisional as at update published on 18 February 2010. – Less than 5 dwellings P – Figure provisional and subject to revision. R – Revised.


Private Enterprise

2006 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

2008 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

Completed

54


60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 Starts – all dwellings 20,000

Completions – all dwellings

10,000

20

00

Q

1 Q 4 Q 3 20 Q2 03 Q 1 Q 4 Q 3 20 Q2 06 Q 1 Q 4 Q 3 20 Q2 09 Q 1

–

Figure 3.7 Housing starts and completions in England, from 2000 to 3rd quarter of 2009

downs in the investment values of the company’s portfolio. This was by no means an unusual situation, as illustrated by the data in Table 3.3. From Table 3.3, pages 68–71, it can be seen that these ten publicly quoted companies own, manage or have an interest in – for example as joint venture partners – investment and development properties with a total value in 2008–09 in excess of £40bn. In most cases the companies had significantly written down the values of their property, and seven companies had raised additional capital through rights issues or new share placings, most of this capital raising having taken place since the reports and accounts had been published. Several companies also renegotiated financing arrangements with their banks and other investors. Some companies had converted to the status of Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs), giving them more favourable tax status. As with all professions, valuers and accountants apply specific meanings to terms used in reporting upon property investments. The glossary in Box 3.1 provides an explanation as to common terms that may be encountered in the annual reports of property companies.

3.4

Assessing the market potential The previous section describes in some detail how the UK’s major developers of residential and commercial properties have responded to the adverse market conditions experienced in the period 2007–09. Individual companies have taken different actions but, collectively, they have scaled back their operations, reducing the number of homes constructed or concentrating on pre-let commercial development projects instead of speculative schemes. In some cases they have reduced


Box 3.1

Glossary of financial and property market terms

ERV (Estimated Rental Value) The valuers’ estimates of the current annual market rent of all lettable space, net of any non-recoverable charges, before bad-debt provision and adjustments required by International Accounting Standards regarding tenant lease incentives. Gearing Net debt as a percentage of shareholders’ funds. Interest cover Profit before interest and tax (excluding non-cash items such as investment property revaluations) plus the realisation of previous years’ revaluations, as a percentage of net interest (excluding non-cash items such as mark-to-market swaps). Initial yield Annualised net rents on investment properties expressed as a percentage of the market value. Like-for-like capital and income The category of investment properties which have been owned throughout both periods without significant capital expenditure in either period, so both income and capital can be compared on a like-for-like basis. Like-for-like capital The category of investment properties which includes like-for-like income properties, plus those which have been owned throughout the current period but not the whole of the prior period, without significant capital expenditure in the current period, so capital values but not income can be compared on a likefor-like basis. Loan to Value (LTV) The amount of loan secured against specific portfolios of properties, as a percentage of the market value of those properties. Net Assets Definitions vary, but generally exclude loans, secured and unsecured, and minority interests. Net rental income Share of net rents receivable, having taken due account of non-recoverable charges, bad-debt provisions and adjustments to comply with International Accounting Standards regarding tenant lease incentives. Nominal equivalent yield Effective annual yield to a purchaser from the assets individually at market value, after taking account of notional acquisition costs but assuming rent is receivable annually in arrears rather than reflecting the actual rental cash flows. Passing rent Share of contracted annual rents receivable at the balance sheet date. This takes no account of accounting adjustments made in respect of rent-free periods or tenant incentives, the reclassification of certain lease payments as finance charges, or any irrecoverable costs and expenses, and does not include excess turnover rent, additional rent in respect of unsettled rent reviews or sundry income such as from car parks etc. (Based on the glossaries and definitions in the Liberty International report and accounts 2008 and other companies; some companies may apply slightly different definitions.)

55

56


the size of their land banks, either through disposals or by cutting back acquisition programmes, and they have focused attention on extracting value out of their portfolios. They have raised additional capital, either by placing new shares or by calling on shareholders to subscribe to Rights Issues. In total more than £3bn has been raised in this way by the commercial property development and investment companies listed in Table 3.3. Companies also have renegotiated their loan facilities from banks, so as to avoid breaching their banking covenants, at a cost of higher interest charges or more onerous terms. As well as cutting back operations, disposing of assets and restructuring of finances, the latest reports of these leading development companies describe the human costs involved, with many reporting the scaling back of workforces at all levels, sometimes by as much as 40–50 per cent. Although these enforced changes presented a somewhat gloomy picture of the property development industry in late 2009, many of the companies were optimistic in terms of the future, believing that the changes implemented placed their businesses in a good position for market improvements. Gearing up to take advantage of market improvements will require developers, both residential and commercial, to have the support and confidence of their investors – shareholders and lending institutions. Decisions to invest in increased rates of production and new developments, especially those that are entirely speculative, will require indepth market research. Several of the larger developers listed in Tables 3.1 and 3.3 employ in-house market research staff, while others rely on the services of specialist consultants. It is no longer realistic to assume that just because one form of development was successful a few years ago, another similar development will be equally successful today – that can be a recipe for disaster. Modern research techniques tend to be quite sophisticated, involving demographic studies to forecast population shifts and likely changes in household formation. Births, deaths, employment rates, age profile of the community and educational attainment all need to be used to determine the types of housing, employment and leisure facilities that may be required in a particular location. Smaller developers are less likely to have in-house market research staffs, or be able to employ expensive consultants, but may nevertheless have the advantage of local knowledge, gained through many years of working in a town or city. Such developers are also able to call upon the advice of local estate agents, on whom they may also rely for a supply of development sites. Quite often these developers have almost a ‘sixth sense’ for knowing what will work in their marketplace. They have either produced a well-tried and highly respected product, or they have a knack of being able to identify a niche in the market. However, no matter how successful a product has been in the past, the intending developer needs to analyse historical take-up and other competing developments with considerable care. 3.4.1

Market research At its simplest, market research may consist of nothing more than the property developer identifying and analysing developments that are currently on the market, paying special attention to those that have sold or let well and to those


57

that appear to have been less successful. The developer also needs to consider those projects for which planning permission has been obtained but have not yet started on site, as a failure to start work may be indicative of another developer’s concerns regarding the state of the market. Questions might be asked of local and national estate agents as to how they view the prospects for a particular type of development product, but a degree of caution needs to be exercised here, as it is in the agents’ interests to have a positive attitude towards the market and not be too pessimistic. Analysis of recent and potential competing developments, and advice from the estate agents, may be backed up by some economic and demographic data, but little more in terms of assessing future demand. Taken altogether, this limited research might give an indication as to how the project might be received in the marketplace, but it will be fairly unstructured. All too often this limited-scale market research is how developers undertook market research in the past, but that has changed considerably over the last decade or so. Banks and other lending institutions have been the driving force behind much of the improvement in the quality of market research and that is likely to be the case even more in the future, as they require research that is robust and enables them to compare the risks associated with property development alongside other types of lending they may be asked to consider. Banks may therefore look for market research that includes some degree of testing among the target market. This research may be quantitative or qualitative; it may also be strategic or site-specific. Regardless of the type of research undertaken, the researcher and the project team need to understand what is required and, in order to reach an informed position, they all need to recognise the limitations of the research. Quantitative research might include face-to-face interviews, in the street or in some specific location such as a shopping centre. The sampling frame can be predefined in terms of size, age and gender, and the results might provide an indication of the demand for a particular type of housing development. Telephone interviews and/ or questionnaire surveys enquiring about expansion or contraction and possible relocation decisions might assist in assessing demand for a commercial or industrial development, although firms are often wary about responding to that type of questioning. This type of survey work can be designed to be very specific in relation to the location or business sector of the firms questioned. Self-completion questionnaires circulated by inclusion in magazines, at conferences or via other media, such as email, can provide other quantitative data, although there may be some difficulty in determining the total population size, with the attendant problem of assessing how representative the sample might be. Qualitative market research may include group discussions and focus groups, individual interviews and business-to-business surveys. These are more likely to provide an indication of the general state of the market, as against hard numbers, but may still assist in finalising the design of the product or determining the mix of units to be provided in the development, e.g. the number of two-bedroom as opposed to one-bedroom apartments, or the likely range of size requirements for office suites. For residential developments at the project-specific scale, it might be appropriate to probe people’s intentions to move house within the next 12 months, seeking

58


to ascertain the type of information they might require and whether they would wish to rent or buy. To a limited extent this can be achieved by including tailored questions in householder surveys that can comprise different techniques, such as multimedia, face-to-face, telephone, online and mobile surveys. There are many sources of background information available to support market research, many of which are available on the internet. These include those from government organisations such as National Statistics, which comprise a diverse range of data including information on children, education, training, crime, health, population, travel and transport; see www.statistics.gov.uk. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) publishes a useful guide of national statistics, Sustainable Development Indicators in your Pocket, which is a handy, free of charge, pocket-sized distillation of around 60 key series, largely from the e-Digest of Environmental Statistics website; it is also downloadable from the Defra website: www.defra.gov.uk/sustainable/government/ progress/index.htm. Information regarding sustainability issues, including those relating to land and buildings, can also be obtained from the Sustainability at Work website: www.sustainabilityatwork.org.uk, which was developed in partnership with the National Audit Office, the Sustainable Development Commission and Defra. This is useful, as it is often very difficult for organisations to know where to begin in building sustainability into their work. Sustainability at Work aims to address the problem by bringing together key guidance, tools and other information regarding sustainability and relating them to common questions and challenges. No matter how it is carried out, the objectives of market research should be to identify and, so far as possible, quantify the potential market for the proposed product and gain an understanding of how it might be received. That will enable the development team to adjust the product to suit the market. For example, the research and historical figures might show an annual demand for offices in the general vicinity of the proposed development of around 5000 square metres per annum, rising by about 5 per cent per annum. Given that assessment of the market, it would probably be inappropriate to develop 15 000 square metres in a single building, unless the research identified some previously unidentified pentup demand, or a possible relocation target, in which case pre-letting the development might be more appropriate than proceeding on an entirely speculative basis. Appointing the right market research organisation is important. The Market Research Society has members in more than 70 countries and claims to be the world’s largest association serving all those with professional equity in provision or use of market, social and opinion research, and in business intelligence, market analysis, customer insight and consultancy. It publishes A Newcomers’ Guide to Market and Social Research for those about to appoint market research consultants for the first time, downloadable from its website at www.mrs.org.uk along with various other guidance documents. Throughout the entire market research process it should be borne in mind that even the smallest development will probably take a minimum of one year from the date of research until the accommodation is available; this time lag needs to be taken into account. The objective therefore will be one of endeavouring to predict what the market will be like when the first phase of the development is ready for sale or lease. The market researcher


59

and the developer will also have to take account of the cyclical nature of property markets, with peaks and troughs of demand. 3.4.2

Using the tools to assess market potential When the proposed development involves the reuse of previously developed ‘brownfield’ land, developers, as short-term risk-takers, occupy a pivotal position by being able to stimulate initial confidence in the property market. This is especially the case after markets have suffered serious declines in values and confidence, as development activity is essential in terms of generating investment activity and encouraging longer-term investors back to the market. Having access to market research and employing the relevant tools to interpret that research is therefore central to the role of the development team, which needs to include economists, market research and sales advisors from the outset. Involving these professions only when the project has been designed and costed is leaving it too late. Geographical information systems (GIS) are valuable tools that can help developers in appreciating the complexities of the markets in which they operate. They are computer systems used for capturing, storing, checking, integrating, manipulating, analysing and displaying data relative to the Earth’s surface. The data can be assembled, processed and displayed at many different levels, from national or even international scales down to local neighbourhoods. The information is displayed by overlaying layers of information on top of a base map. The base map may, for example, show the topography of the ground, together with existing settlements and watercourses, which can then be overlaid with other layers showing the road network, land uses, ownerships, town planning data, floodplains, etc. Care is needed in selecting the appropriate layers to be displayed, as too many layers can result in a map that is confused by the over-provision of data, while too few layers may produce a map that is meaningless. Landis (1998, p. 6) suggested that, ‘For convenience, the database can be thought of as a spreadsheet, with the map features as spreadsheet rows and the feature attributes [their geographic location] as spreadsheet columns.’ Roulac (1998, p. 1) observed that, ‘With GIS, users see relationships that would otherwise be difficult to grasp [and] the relationships between the factors studied may be either expressly acknowledged or constructed purely for analytical purposes.’ Since the first edition of Land, Development and Design was published, considerable strides have been made in the development of GIS, but the basic principles remain the same. Perhaps the most important development has been the increase in publicly available mapping sources, such as Google Maps (www.maps.google.co.uk), Multimap (www.multimap.com) and UpMyStreet (www.upmystreet.com), several of which have the facility to produce ‘hybrid’ maps combining conventional mapping with aerial or satellite photography. Historical mapping, essential for site-assessment purposes (see chapter 4), is available from www.old-maps.co.uk, a joint venture between Ordnance Survey and Landmark Information Group. In addition to maps, a number of extensive datasets are also available on-line, including live housing statistics from Communities and Local Government and, of considerable benefit to developers operating in Greater London, the London Brownfield Sites database

60


(www.londonbrownfieldsites.org), developed as a joint venture between the London Development Agency and the Homes and Communities Agency. For the intending property developer, GIS and publicly available mapping resources and datasets, when combined with project-specific market research, can be used for a number of purposes, including to:

• • • • • • • •

determine how location affects property values; list and display properties currently on the market; record and present data relating to historical transactions; display changes in growth patterns in towns and cities; display data relating to population changes, educational attainment, crime and unemployment; record and display town planning data; show the location of local services, such as shopping centres, schools, libraries and leisure facilities in relation to the proposed development; and show the location of existing or proposed competing developments.

The extent to which a developer will undertake comprehensive market research at the project inception stage will vary, for many different reasons. A developer working in a well-defined local market, say producing mid-price-range houses in a single town or city, may need to undertake very little research and will probably base site-acquisition decisions on the company’s own performance figures. In contrast, a developer from outside the area, wishing to break into the market, would need to commission extensive research in order to support the decisionmaking process and to take a great deal of care in analysing the information obtained. Regardless of market familiarity or otherwise, the following ten factors are fundamentals that any intending developer would be well advised to take into account: 1. Population change: Consider whether the population in the town or city and the wider region is increasing or decreasing. A reducing population is likely to be accompanied by a declining market, and it is important to note that significant population shifts may also take place within individual towns and cities. 2. Economic change: Consider whether the comparative wealth of the town or city might be increasing or decreasing relative to the region or sub-region and on a national basis. An improving economy may bring demands for enhanced specifications in both residential and commercial developments. Note also that significant differences may exist within local authority areas, for which fine-grained data may be essential, such as that obtainable from the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD), which combines a range of economic, social and housing issues into a single deprivation score for each small area in England. This allows all areas to be ranked relative to one another according to their level of deprivation. The Indices of Deprivation for 2004 and 2007 were produced at Lower Super Output Area level, of which there are 32,482 in England. The IMD for England is published by Communities and Local Government (www.communities.gov.


3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

61

uk/communities/neighbourhoodrenewal/deprivation/deprivation07), for Scotland by the Scottish Government (www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/ Statistics/SIMD) and for Wales by the Welsh Assembly (www.wales.gov.uk/ topics/statistics/theme/wimd/?lang=en). Employment change: Ascertain whether any major companies in the area have recently signalled an intention to expand or decrease their activities, as closures or downsizing are likely to result in a downturn in demand. Land type E in the National Land Use Database of previously developed land (NLUD-pdl) – see chapter 2 – contains information relating to sites regarded by the local planning authority as having redevelopment potential, but where planning permission has not been granted or no change of use is indicated in planning documents. The allocation of premises to land type E may be based on information provided to the planning authority by the site owner/ operator, or alternatively by the authority’s own assessment of the situation. Either way this information is regarded as being commercially sensitive, making this the only confidential category in NLUD-pdl. Nevertheless, the total area of land type E in a particular local authority area may give a general indication of a ‘pent-up’ future supply of redevelopment land. Employer vulnerability: Consider whether the area is dependent on a single employer or type of industry, and the extent to which local employment might be affected by national or international events. Market prices: Review changes in rents and prices for industrial, office, retail and residential properties and determine whether they are keeping pace with, exceeding or falling behind inflation. It is also worth noting that price/rent changes in one sector may be indicative of possible changes in other sectors, with lagged impacts. Investment yields: Changes in the returns that investors require from different forms of property investment, and how they compare with other forms of investment, will provide an indication of how they view the market in the area. Although much of the data may be available only at regional or sub-regional levels, the Investment Property Databank (www.ipd.com), an independent real-estate information business, monitors and analyses commercial investment data in the UK, Europe and much of the rest of the world. Infrastructure changes: Works such as new motorway connections and airport expansions are likely to have positive impacts on property values, albeit possibly with some localised detrimental impacts due to increased traffic or noise, while the abandonment of a proposed bypass may have a serious negative impact on values. Land availability: A plentiful supply of land, allocated in Local Planning Documents for the use, or types of use, proposed by the developer, with no real competition, probably suggests a weak market. It could also indicate an over-allocation of one type of development, e.g. employment use, with an undersupply of other use types. Existing planning permission: Evidence of unimplemented planning permissions for similar uses is also evidence of weakness in the market, although in some instances landowners may decide to ‘test the market’ by obtaining planning permission for an alternative use to the one that currently exists

62


on the site. This enables the owner to consider options for the land and may even result in enhanced value for balance-sheet purposes. 10. Specification comparison: Consider how the specification of competing developments compares with the proposed project, and assess whether any innovative ideas have succeeded or failed. These ten factors apply to all forms of development, regardless of whether a developer is planning a residential scheme, a business park, a retail centre or a new leisure facility. Intending developers need to recognise the potential impact that changes in one sector may have on other sectors and be conscious of differences within sectors; for example, a weak demand for industrial buildings may be somewhat concealed by a strong demand for warehouse premises in good motorway locations. Both are within the same general property market sector, but modern operations may require different specifications, e.g. higher eaves heights, super-flat floors, numerous loading doors and tail-docking facilities might be demanded by warehouse operators, whereas they are less likely to be required by industrial concerns. Depending on the type of development, it will be necessary to take account of other factors in the market analysis. The location and quality of schools will be important factors in analysing the potential success of a residential development aimed at young families, whereas proximity to doctors and pharmacists may be more important in a sheltered housing scheme for the elderly. Shopping and leisure facilities will be important factors to consider in commercial projects. The lack of such facilities is an oft-voiced complaint from employees working in out-of-centre business parks; having worked for several years in such a location the author shares this view. While the lack of such facilities may be of little concern to the decision makers, who may be quite happy to remain at their desks and consume a lunchtime sandwich delivered by a ‘snack van’, it may represent a serious problem for other members of staff, especially those with young families, who have limited time in which to shop or exercise. The lack of such facilities may also result in recruitment problems for tenants and have an eventual impact on demand or rents. Off-site physical factors, such as public transport and local road networks, must be considered as part of the market analysis, as they will have diverse implications according to the type of development proposed. For example, an industrial and warehousing estate situated in a highly visible location next to a motorway, close but not immediately adjacent to an exit, will be significantly reduced in desirability to a haulage contractor if, on leaving the motorway, drivers have to negotiate a maze of local streets originally designed and constructed in the early twentieth century. With escalating fuel costs, planning policies, the introduction of congestion charges and other restrictions, ease of access and good public transport connections are likely to become more and more important to many businesses. Developers will need to consider both national and local policies, as well as possible pressures from lobby groups, and evaluate how these might affect the development by the time it is completed. For example, the introduction of bus lanes or traffic-calming measures in the period between project inception and completion of the first buildings may have a direct impact on demand for both office and warehouse developments.


63

Historically, mixed-use developments have been difficult to finance, at least for smaller developers, but planning policies are generally in favour of such forms of development. As part of the market analysis the intending developer will need to consider the scale and massing of their developments, as well as the mix of uses. Also, given recent experience, they will need to consider the flexibility of their schemes, including the ability to change the use of some buildings, or parts thereof, and to postpone or mothball complete phases of the project. For example, there have been a great many blocks of apartments constructed with retail uses at ground-floor level, many of which have failed to attract occupiers and have remained vacant for years; see Figure 3.8. In some cases complete concrete frames have been constructed and then work on site has been halted, leaving a skeleton, complete with tower crane, reaching up into the sky – see Figure 3.1.

Figure 3.8 Paying lip service to mixed-use development? Empty, boarded-up shops that have never been occupied since being constructed as part of a large residential regeneration project. Questions must be asked as to whether these and many similar shop units in non-retail locations will ever be let. Would they be better converted to some form of community use?

The list of factors that could be considered is almost endless, and in many respects may be beyond the resources of even the largest developer to undertake at the project inception stage. In the author’s opinion the best way to approach the task of assessing market potential is to identify the factors that are likely to be most important to the project, analyse them using the best data available and then keep reviewing them throughout the entire development process.

3.5

Forecasting rents and prices As mentioned earlier in this chapter, property markets are cyclical – they rise, peak, then enter a downward slope before reaching a low point and starting to

64


rise again. No one has a foolproof method for predicting when the market will peak and when the best prices will be obtainable, but in most cycles the consequences of failing to predict the peak are not too serious. In the UK, residential property prices have tended to grow faster than inflation and, in a downturn, real prices, i.e. those adjusted for inflation, may fall, but the nominal prices – those paid by purchasers to the developers of new homes – are likely to remain unchanged or even to rise slightly as each new phase is released, thanks to demand exceeding supply. Thus, to the casual observer, the property market cycle may be somewhat masked. It also has to be recognised that if the market is on the upturn, especially in very buoyant conditions, the market research may be out of date even before it has been fully collated and analysed. A developer may therefore feel justified in saying that the research is meaningless, as he can achieve almost any price or rent he likes to name, and it is true that many developers have an almost instinctive feel for how their products will be received by potential purchasers and tenants. In a falling market, especially in conditions when the developer may be faced with having to suspend operations or mothball a project, market research is more likely to be taken into account and may be essential in ensuring the continued support of the banks providing the development finance. It is not always possible to identify rising and falling markets in such clear-cut terms as, in reality, property markets are composed of many different sub-markets, each of which can behave slightly differently from others. All the developer can do is to use the information provided from the market research, plus the knowledge of prices and rents being achieved on similar projects, in an attempt to forecast the outturn figures that may be achieved when the development comes on stream in, say, two years’ time. These figures can then be subjected to sensitivity analysis, using either a specialist development-appraisal software package or a spreadsheet approach to take the historical data and construct trend lines to predict possible future performance. The data analysis tools in Microsoft Excel can be used to predict future performance and to perform ‘what if?’ analyses, such as estimating the impact of a five per cent increase in construction costs, or the impact on financing arising out of a six months’ delay in the development programme. However, such projections should be used with a great deal of caution. Transaction data, in particular, should be researched and processed with care, or even a degree of scepticism, unless it is data of which the project team has first-hand knowledge. This is essential not only to ensure the closest possible conformity in terms of property location, size and specification, but also to ensure that no hidden financial incentives, such as extended rent-free periods or fitting-out costs, were used to attract tenants to the property.

3.6

Summary The first decade of the twenty-first century has seen major changes taking place in the development industry, affecting the developers of both residential and commercial properties. Mergers between house builders and refinancing activities


65

across both sectors have featured strongly in the second half of the decade. Taking a professional and systematic approach to the inception stages of development projects is now more important than ever before. Property development is still about taking risks, and demand is still cyclical. As this book went to press there were signs of the start of an up-cycle, which may bring renewed confidence to the industry. The housing starts and completions figures given in this chapter clearly show that there is a long way to go before governmental housing targets can be achieved, and public-sector involvement in housing delivery is likely to be a factor for some years to come. An important issue here is going to be about ensuring an adequate supply of mortgage finance, especially for prospective buyers who have deposits of less than 20 per cent of the value of the homes they wish to purchase. Decisions regarding the form and timing of development projects must be made against a background of comprehensive market research that takes account not only of local economic circumstances and competing projects, but also of national, and even global, factors that might influence market performance. It is also essential to recognise that market research is not a ‘one-off ’, something carried out in the early planning stage of the project. Rather, it should be revisited throughout the lifetime of the development and, wherever possible, flexibility should be incorporated into the scheme, so as to reflect changes in volumes and types of demand. It is also the case, however, that sufficient flexibility is not always possible, as evidenced by the fact that some projects have been ‘mothballed’ part way through construction. As outlined in this chapter, there are many different factors that will determine the success, or otherwise, of a property development project. Aside from the market-related factors, probably the most important factors likely to have a major impact on profitability are those relating to site acquisition and assessment, which are covered in chapter 4.

3.7

Checklist

• • • • •

Commission a comprehensive land-use study of the area, identifying any existing or proposed uses that may have either a beneficial or detrimental impact on the proposed project. Analyse the historical take-up in the market and pay particular attention to any extant planning permissions that have not been implemented. Undertake robust market analysis, not forgetting regional, national or even international issues that may affect the market. Adopt a realistic attitude towards projections of rents, yields and prices, bearing in mind that in the two, three or more years before the project comes on stream, the market profile may change. Make full use of technology such as GIS and the internet, including freely available maps and reports, when putting together development proposals.

66


Table 3.1 Housing completions and land banks of ten major house builders (source: latest available reports and accounts, Daily Telegraph Business section, various editions) Company

Completed homes in latest report

Change from previous report

Current land bank: plots

Barratt Developments

13,202

Down 5,386 (Note: combined completions of Barratt and David Wilson Homes in 2001 were 13,584)

c.68,000 plots, owned and controlled, down 10,700 on previous year

Bellway

6,556, 12 months to 31 July 2008 (2,014 six months to 31 January 2009, down from 3,252 in same period previous year)

Down 1,082

22,500 plots, held with planning permission, down 1 000 on previous year

Berkeley Group

1,501, 12 months to 30 April 2009

Down 1,666

23,572, owned, up from 23,065 previous year. Includes joint ventures

Bovis Homes Group

1,817 for the year to 31 December 2008 (754 in the six months to 30th June 2009, down 11% on the same period in 2008)

Down 1,113 on 2007

13,545 plots at 31 December 2008, up from 11,413 previous year, 96% of the 4,026 plots added were from strategic land bank. (Reduced to 12,851 at 30 June 2009)

Countryside

2,876, 12 months to 30 September 2007

Up 760

7,400 plots in 2007 (2006 – 7,850) with planning permission

Galliford Try

1,767, year to 30 June 2009

Down 755 from 2,524 in 2008

4,700 owned and controlled, down from 5,400 previous year

Kier Group

1,141 (Peak of 1,767 units in 2007)

Down 949

6,150 plots with planning permission (most acquired more than two years previously)

Persimmon

10,202

Down 5,703

69,279 plots owned or under control, down from 78,863 plots in 2007

Redrow

2,113

Down 1,812

12,500 plots, owned or contracted, with planning permission. Down from 19,100 previous year

Taylor Wimpey

13,394

Down 1,468

91,059 plots owned or controlled


67

Strategic land bank: plots or hectares as shown

Years’ supply based on latest figures

Comments

Not differentiated

5.2 years in current land bank

Interim results, 12 months to 30 June 2009, in line with expectations, with target pricing achieved. Private completions for the year were 24.8% lower and Sec.106 social completions were 45.3% lower. Social housing accounted for 15.7% of total completions, down from 20.4% in 2008

14,400 plots owned, contracted or under option awaiting planning permission, (down 1,400), plus long-term land, a combination of greenfield and regeneration – around 4,850 plots

6.4 years, current and strategic, long-term, land banks combined

Completions underpinned by an increasing proportion of social housing where completions rose by 49% to 1,337 homes, 20% of total

6,472 contracted or agreed, down 1 828

20 years

All development in 2008/09 on brownfield land and in excess of 95% of land holdings are on brownfield or recycled land

18,972 compared to 24,868 potential plots at 31 December 2007 (Reduced to 18,588 plots at end June 2009)

17.68 years, current and strategic, based on land holdings at 30 June 2009

The average size of the Group’s private homes fell by 5% in 2008, to 972 square feet as compared to 1,023 square feet in 2007

14,400 in 2007 (2006 – 15,450) subject to planning permission

7.6 years, current and strategic land banks combined in 2007

Completions include 1,081 units of social housing, up from 672 in 2006

1,300 acres, expected to generate around 8,200 units

7.3 years, current and strategic

Reducing commitments regarding large developments of apartments

c12,000 plots June 2008 (from 11,500 previous year)

15.9 years, current and strategic combined based on land holdings at 30 June 2008

Preliminary results for the year to 30 June 2009. 52% social housing, up from 43% previous year. Restructured from five housing operations into one

c 8,140 hectares

6.69 years, excluding strategic land bank

Year to 31 December 2008

25,400 plots, down from 26,550 previous year – reported in interim results for the half-year to 31 December 2008

17.94 years

Preliminary results to 30 June 2009

102,892 plots

14.48 years

Year to 31 December 2008. Social housing increased as a proportion of overall completions, to 21% during 2008 from 16% in 2007

Table 3.3 Activities and financial position of ten publicly quoted commercial development and investment companies (source: latest available reports and accounts, Daily Telegraph Business section, various editions) Company

Year ended and subsequent reports/press

Main activities

Asset value

British Land

31/03/2009

Develops and invests in large retail shopping centres, superstores, retail warehouses, high street shops, London offices.

£8.6bn prime property portfolio (£12.3bn total owned or managed), 96% let with average 13 years to lease break or expiry.

Hammerson

31/12/2008 and half year to 30/06/2009

Developers and investors in major retail centres and out-oftown retail parks, plus seven office buildings in London and Paris.

£4.7bn in the UK and France 30/06/09, down from £6.46bn at 31 December 2008 (December 2007 £7,275m).

Helical Bar

31/03/2009

Property development and investment, active in retail, office, industrial and mixed-use developments. Includes retirement villages and refurbishment projects.

£497.2m, investment and development properties, of which about half classed as ‘investment’ and half as ‘trading and development’.

Land Securities

31/03/2009

Property development and investment. Owns and manages more than 2.7 million m2 of commercial property mainly in retail shopping centres, out-oftown retail and London offices and retail.

£9.4bn investment portfolio –£4.3bn retail portfolio and £5.1bn London portfolio.

Liberty International

12/12/2008 and half year to 30/06/2009

Owns 100 per cent of Capital Shopping Centres and of Capital & Counties, a retail and commercial property investment and development company. 86% of investment properties are prime retail – 73% in regional shopping centres.

£6.087bn of investment and trading properties, down from £7.108bn in December 2008.

Financial position

Development activity / land bank

Comments

Portfolio split 56% retail, 42% offices. Borrowings £5.6bn, of which 70% non-recourse, average interest rate 5.3%, average period to debt maturity 12.7 years.

Deferred construction of 122 Leadenhall Street, London, reflecting heightened construction and letting risk.

Sold the Willis building for £400 million in June, reducing debt with a view to redeploying capital for greater growth. Sold half of the company’s interest in Meadowhall, Sheffield, removing £1 billion of debt from the balance sheet. Raised £740 million in a Rights Issue.

Gearing reduced from 118% at 31/12/08 to 81% of asset value 30/06/09.

At 31/12/08 exposure to developments was limited to just one major development, Union Square in Aberdeen, and some smaller retail parks schemes.

During 2008 invested a total of £514 million, of which £377 million in respect of developments. Property disposals raised £245 million. Also during 2008, arranged new committed facilities totalling £850 million and, on 9 February 2009, announced a fully underwritten rights issue to raise proceeds of £584.2 million.

Net borrowings of £224.7m (2008: £205.5m) ratio of net borrowings to the value of the property portfolio was 45.2% (2008: 38.6%). Net debt to equity gearing at 31 March 2009 was 95% (2008: 76%).

Diverse development activity in retail developments in Poland, office developments and refurbishments in London, industrial developments in Oxford, Southampton, Southall (West London) and Hailsham, retirement villages in Cawston, Rugby and Liphook, Hants.

Valuation yields on the company’s investment portfolio rose by 180 (2008: 90) basis points, in line with the market, causing a fall in values of 25.7% (2008: 11.3%) reflected as a loss on revaluation of £68.0m (2008: £32.6m). Trading loss after tax of £53.5m (2008 £12.3m). Placing of 9.7m shares in January 2009 at 285p per share, raised £26.4m net of costs.

Adjusted gearing ratio, including shares of joint venture liabilities, 105.9%, up from 67.6% the previous year. Secured debt structure provides for different operating environments which apply in ‘tiers’ determined by levels of Loan To Value (LTV) and Interest Cover Ratios (ICR).

Developments completed in the year were, on average, 72% let by year end with £11m of development lettings achieved. Ongoing projects at 10 Eastbourne Terrace, W2; Dashwood House, EC2; Cabot Circus, Bristol; and The Elements, Livingston.

Write-down on the valuation of investment properties of 34.2% created a pre-tax loss of £4.77bn, increased from £988.0m the previous year. £1.125bn of asset disposals during the year, including sale of Trillium (at a loss). Rights issue in March 2009 raised £756m.

Predominantly nonrecourse debt structure, at 30 June 2009 was in compliance with all loan covenants. No major secured debt refinancing until 2011.

Reduced capital commitments on property developments from £238 million to £195 million, deferring projects other than where already committed, e.g. putting the Westgate, Oxford shopping centre redevelopment on hold.

Disposed of £187 million of non-core assets in half-year to June 2009, in addition to £200 million realised in 2008 (2007 –£340 million). £592 million new equity raised increased cash and available facilities to £928 million at 30 June 2009.

70


Table 3.3

Continued

Company

Year ended and subsequent reports/press

Main activities

Asset value

Quintain Estates

31/03/2009

Development and investment company, specialising in mixed use projects. The Investment Portfolio represents 10.0% of property assets by value and comprises mainly secondary commercial assets.

£1.18bn with valuations down by an average 23.0% over the 12 months.

St Modwen

31/11/2008

Brownfield land renewal, town centre regeneration, partnerships, innovation and education.

Net assets £402m, £1.1bn portfolio of investment properties.

Segro (Slough Estates Group)

31/12/2008

Property investment and development company with 16 offices in 10 European countries. Provides flexible business space for industry, research and development, assembly and production, workshops and storage, suburban offices.

Investment and development properties £4.311bn at 31/12/08, down from £4.762bn the previous year.

Town Centre Securities

30/06/2008

Investors and developers of retail and offices properties and car park operators.

Property investments, £401m external valuation, down 15.7% on 2007.

Workspace Group

31/03/2009

Specialises in the provision of space to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) across London.

Property valuation at the year end of £662m down 33% on previous year.

Total

£40.64bn


71

Financial position

Development activity / land bank

Comments

Maximum gearing limit of all bilateral facilities reset to 150% from 110% (May 2009).

The company’s Urban Regeneration business is mainly in London and spans the commercial, retail and residential property sectors. It constitutes 61.7% of the gross property assets.

A cash repatriation programme returned £97.5m to the Company over the reporting period, used to meet capital commitments and reduce debt. Barclays Bank facility maturity date moved from April 2011 to April 2013. Rights issue announced on 5 November 2009, to raise £180 million.

Gearing limit 125%, actual in 2008 105% (2007 86%).

Land bank of 3,425 hectares, including joint ventures, of which 1,975 hectares developable.

Trading profit for the year (excluding revaluation write downs and mark to market adjustments) of £8.2m (2007: £50.9m). After write-downs and adjustments, loss of £50.7m (2007: £93.7m profit). The results for the year include a negative yield shift on average of 1%.

Gearing renegotiated from 125% (net debt to adjusted shareholders’ funds) to 160%, in return for higher cost of borrowing.

Speculative development significantly scaled back in reaction to the downturn and focused on pre-lets to mitigate risk. As at 31/12/2008, 297,000 sq.m. under construction or committed was 64% let.

Loss before tax £939.2m (2007 loss of £246.5m). Sale of non-core or mature assets generated proceeds of £343m during 2008 and over three years the group completed asset sales of c£2.3bn.

Exposure to market conditions has been mitigated through early renewal of loan facilities with Lloyds TSB and Royal Bank of Scotland until 2012 and 2013 respectively, amounting to £102m. £150m mortgage debenture fixed until 2031 at 5.375%.

Current strategy focuses on investing in the company’s existing portfolio and adjoining properties, as opposed to acquiring new investments.

Loss of £11.2m includes impacts of a property revaluation deficit of £75.3m (2007: surplus £23.6m) and exceptional deferred tax credit of £56.2m on conversion to a Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT).

Renegotiated bank facilities. Level of debt significantly reduced, with term on all facilities extended to November 2012.

Focus on upgrading of existing investment properties. Twenty sites identified for planning permission and intensification of use in next five years and 50 sites for redevelopment within ten years.

Rights Issue raised £87m, before costs.

Part Two Land

4 4.1

Site Assembly, Investigation and Assessment

Introduction Any intending developer, or planning officer, should be extremely wary of a site investigation report that does not contain an historical study and, unless satisfied by further enquiries, would probably be well advised to reject the report. This cautionary note was included in the Introduction to the Site Assessment chapter in the first edition of Land, Development and Design, and it still holds true today. Yet the author is aware of fairly recent instances of redevelopment decisions being taken on the basis of incomplete historical information. It cannot be stressed too strongly that if the acquisition or redevelopment of a previously developed site is contemplated, then decisions should be based on the fullest possible knowledge that can be obtained. It is recognised, nevertheless, that developers are understandably reluctant to spend large sums of money on comprehensive site investigations in advance of purchasing the site. Landowners can also be reluctant to allow intrusive site investigations – especially trial pitting – to take place without the comfort of knowing that a sale is going to happen, or at least that the site will be fully reinstated to its original condition – which is hard to achieve if the investigation involves driving holes through concrete or tarmac roads and hard-standings. Preacquisition site investigations may also be hampered in situations where all, or part, of a site is still in use. As a consequence of all or some of these considerations, site investigations may be constrained in terms of scope, or necessitate being carried out in two or more phases, possibly with the consideration payable for the site being adjusted in the light of the investigation findings. Failure to recognise the risks associated with a lack of knowledge regarding site conditions can result in severe financial penalties, as illustrated by the case study in Box 4.1, which may totally wipe out any profit from the development or, in extreme situations, result in the collapse of the development company. The case study serves to illustrate the financial implications that can be associated with compromised or inadequate site investigations, and the situation could have been much worse, especially if the contamination had migrated from the site into adjoining properties. Fortunately, in this case the contamination had not migrated and the developer, being a major company, was able to absorb the additional costs. Land, Development and Design, 2e. By Paul Syms © 2010 Paul Syms

76

Land

Box 4.1 Inadequate site investigation of a former bus depot (see also Syms, 1997, pp156–158)

The site that was the subject of this investigation was several hectares in size, located in Greater London in an area of high demand, and the developer was in competition with a number of others to secure the site for a business park development. In view of the competition situation and the fact that the site was still in full operational use, it was not possible to undertake a full intrusive investigation. The intrusive work was therefore limited to the excavation of a small number of trial pits in areas of hard-standing where landfilling was known to have taken place. The consultants also conducted a ‘walkover’ of the site, noting that spillage of fuel oils and other hydrocarbon-based materials had occurred in the maintenance garages and in the proximity of above-ground oil storage tanks. No historical investigations were undertaken, nor were enquiries made about working practices on the site. The conclusion reached by the consultants was that the contamination did not constitute a serious problem. The developer therefore made a provision of £150,000 per hectare in the development appraisal in order to deal with any remediation work that might be required. Armed with the information from the consultants’ report, the developer submitted a bid for the site, which was successful. The developer also entered into a planning agreement, which included the provision of extensive off-site infrastructure works and the provision of community facilities, adding almost £1million per hectare to the development costs. When work started on site it was found that, in addition to the above-ground oil storage tanks, there were a number of leaking underground storage tanks. It was also found that the waste disposal practices on the site had been somewhat lacking, with waste oil having been stored in redundant underground air-raid shelters, from where it too had leaked into the ground. The cost of remediating the site escalated from the £150,000 provision included in the development appraisal to around £500,000 per hectare, and the resultant delay meant that the project came on stream at a time when the commercial property market had entered a recession.


77

The case study demonstrates the unfortunate consequences of relying upon the results of a low-cost, limited-scope investigation of a large site, but physical constraints imposed on the investigation of much smaller sites can also have serious implications for the developer, as illustrated by the case study in Box 4.2.

Box 4.2 Redevelopment of a small site for a motor vehicle showroom The site in question was located in a main road position in Greater Manchester and had an area of less than 0.5 hectare. Formerly the site of an engineering works, the property had been compulsorily acquired for a highway improvement scheme. All buildings had been demolished down to floor-slab level and, after taking the part of the site required for the highway improvement, the site was sold for redevelopment. Purchased by a local vehicle distributor, a new showroom and workshop were designed, and a combined geo-environmental and geotechnical site investigation was commissioned. When commissioning the investigation the project manager imposed a significant constraint. Half to two-thirds of the site was covered by a substantial concrete slab – the floor of the former principal building. This was in good condition and the project manager wished to retain it intact for reuse. The new building had been designed in such a way as to fit the footprint of the slab. This meant that the site investigation works had to be limited to the remaining area of the site and that was pointed out to the project manager, who was adamant that the concrete slab had to remain untouched. The site investigation was duly undertaken and evidence of some contamination was found – mainly petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) and heavy metals. The site then lay undeveloped, and unfenced, for almost a year and for part of the time was occupied by a group of travellers. It had also been occupied as a depot by the road-works contractors during the highway improvement scheme and it was known that a diesel-fuel tank had been installed on the site. When work eventually started on the new development extensive hydrocarbon contamination was found, involving the excavation and removal of the contaminated soil to landfill, including breaking up the concrete slab. The source of the contamination was unknown; it could have come from use of the site as the road-works depot, from the unlawful occupation by the travellers, or from the previous engineering occupation and have been concealed by the floor-slab. The lessons to be learned from this case study are that constrained site investigations can result in contaminants not being found; sites should always be fenced, especially after site investigation and prior to development; and, if any period of time is to elapse between the site investigation and construction work commencing, a further investigation should be undertaken immediately prior to work commencing.

These two case studies demonstrate the importance of ensuring that comprehensive site investigations are undertaken as part of the process of acquiring and developing brownfield sites. The purpose of this chapter is to take the reader through the process of acquiring a site, investigating its history and current status, and then forming an opinion as to the risks involved in carrying out a development.

78

4.2

Land

Site assembly During the first few months of 2009 many major housing developers wrote down the value of their land banks in the light of the recession and the downturn in the housing market; see chapter 3, section 3.3. At the same time, the values of commercial properties were tumbling as tenants, especially those in the retail sector, struck hard bargains over rents, and investment yields (the rate of return required by investors) moved higher. The result of this has been to see both residential and commercial developers raising additional capital on the stock market and, in some cases, reducing the size of their landbanks. Nevertheless, in spite of the difficulties experienced by the industry, some developers have been seizing the opportunity to acquire sites at what they hope will prove to be ‘knock-down’ prices. This renewed activity should have the effect of lifting land prices from their recession-inflicted, depressed prices – but one thing can be fairly certain: unless very hard pressed to reduce their debts, developers engaged in reducing their land stocks will do their utmost to hold on to their best land stocks and developments, disposing first of those sites where problems may be envisaged. Prospective developers hoping to pick up some of these apparent bargains will need to be wary. Given the recent downturn in development it is likely that in many parts of the country there will be an adequate supply of land coming to the market, especially in terms of previously developed ‘brownfield’ sites. Even so, it is still likely that many good development sites will not be offered through the open market and will have to be assembled by developers. A developer wishing to embark upon a new development may commission a land-use study of the area, aimed at identifying how the land is being used at present and noting in particular any unused, or underutilised, land and buildings. The study should note the existence of any potential ‘bad neighbour’-type uses, especially those emitting noise, odours, dust and other forms of air pollution, including high volumes of traffic generation, as these could have adverse impacts on the proposed development. It needs to include the planning status of sites in the area, especially any unimplemented planning consents, as the lack of implementation might be an indication of the state of the market. Existing but unimplemented planning permissions, as well as those in the pipeline, can also provide the developer with an indication as to possible competition. This type of study differs from the market research study described in chapter 3, in that it focuses on the physical and regulatory aspects of the site, although much of the information gathered may be needed in order to prepare the brief for the market research. Having undertaken this background research, the next stage is to identify those sites that are likely to be of interest while remembering that, unless the proposed development is of a small scale, the land required may be in more than one ownership. There may even be several different interests – freehold, leasehold, licences, easements, etc. – attaching to a single parcel of land. The developer may well need to acquire, or extinguish, each of these different interests in the land and, in some extreme cases where, say, the beneficial owner of a 999-year lease cannot be found, it may be necessary to obtain insurance cover against the possibility of claims arising at a later date.


79

Having identified a suitable site, the developer must decide how best to approach the owner and the beneficiaries of any other interests subsisting in the land. If the property is publicly available for sale, with an agent’s board fixed to the building, or a particular agent is known to act for the company that owns the premises, then the way forward is usually quite clear – contact the agent. If, however, no agent is involved, the developer (or his agent) will need to make an approach to the owner. In either case the developer will need to decide whether to make a direct approach or to use an agent, who will be under instructions to keep the developer’s identity confidential during the early stages of the negotiation. To some extent the decision on how best to make the approach will depend on whether the potential development site is in a single ownership, or whether it comprises several properties. The need for confidentiality will also vary according to the nature of the development proposed. Acquiring sites that are not on the open market is often a highly complex process and one that requires a great deal of patience. When assembling a brownfield site it is not uncommon to find that the owner has seemingly unrealistic aspirations as to the value of the site and expectations as to price. This is not always simply a case of greed. Several years ago the author, when acting in a site acquisition, found that because of problems of contamination, dereliction and vandalism the price sought by the owner was totally unrealistic. However, on enquiry it was found that the asking price was based on a professional valuation prepared a few years earlier when the factory was in full production. Since then the business had relocated to modern premises and had invested in new machinery, using valuations on the old property and the new one as collateral for bank loans. Finding that the price sought for the old premises was unachievable placed the company in financial hardship and it eventually went into liquidation.

4.3

The historical study It is essential that the acquisition of any development site, brownfield or greenfield, should be supported by a comprehensive site investigation. It is equally important that the investigation should commence with a historical study, so as to gain a comprehensive understanding of the previous uses of the site and any problems that might have been left behind. Wherever possible the historical study and any subsequent intrusive investigation should be undertaken as part of the project inception stage, but many landowners are reluctant to allow anything other than a very limited intrusive investigation prior to contracts being exchanged. In such situations the results from an intrusive investigation should form a conditional part of any option agreement or conditional contract, so as to leave the developer with the ability to withdraw from the site purchase if ground conditions are found to be worse than anticipated. Either that, or the option agreement or the conditional contract should include a formula whereby the costs involved in remedying the adverse ground conditions are shared between the vendor and the developer. Intrusive site investigations are probably beyond the scope of the work of the majority of town planning and development surveying readers of this book.

80

Land

Nevertheless, it is important that people employed in those professions have an understanding as to what can be involved in this type of investigation, which is briefly described in section 4.5. On the other hand, town planners and development surveyors are very likely to become directly involved in undertaking, or at least commissioning, historical studies, so this process is considered in rather more detail in this section, using an actual case study. The historical part of a site investigation involves a study of historical maps and other records, so as to understand how the site has been developed over the years and to ascertain whether or not any geographical features have changed and why that might have occurred. Several phases of development might have occurred during 200 years or so of industrial history, and features such as lakes, rivers, ponds and watercourses may have disappeared. Site levels might have undergone significant change, possibly as the result of the on-site disposal of waste materials, or through the uncontrolled import of wastes from nearby industries, so as to fill hollows or to reduce gradients. Storage tanks and other structures might be shown on one map, but have disappeared by the date of the next map, or they may have been replaced by underground facilities. Careful examination of map features and an understanding of the abbreviations that describe them are essential in learning about the previous activities that took place on the land. The site selected as a practical example for the historical study contains many examples of features disappearing and new ones appearing over the period of almost a century; see section 4.3.1. The historical maps may also provide a positive identification of previous uses, with descriptions such as ‘foundry’, ‘locomotive works’ or ‘tannery’, although in later editions of Ordnance Survey maps many of these descriptions have been replaced with more generic terms such as ‘works’ or ‘depot’. In some cases this may indicate that the original or previous use has ceased to exist; that is not necessarily the case in all instances, but it does mean that other sources of information will have to be consulted in order to compile a comprehensive history of the site. That may be achieved through visits to local libraries, or by consulting a local historical society, and by reference to trade directories for the period under investigation. Trade directories list the occupiers of properties and their trades street by street, property by property, and can be invaluable sources of information; see an example in Figure 4.1. It is important that the historical study considers not only the proposed development site itself, but also the current and historical uses in the surrounding area. A radius of one kilometre around the site under investigation is suggested as appropriate, but in some cases it may be necessary to look further afield for potential sources of contamination, or other potential detriments to the proposed development. As mentioned above, industrial wastes originating both on the site under investigation and from other nearby activities were frequently used to fill hollows and alter ground levels. These wastes took the form of ashes and slag, often contaminated with elevated concentrations of heavy metals – such as arsenic, lead, zinc and copper – or with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH). In addition to being used as fill materials, ashes were also used as blinding under the floor-slabs of building – and thus may not be found until the building is


81

Figure 4.1 Northwich as described in the 1896 edition of Kelly’s Trade Directory of Cheshire

82

Land

demolished – and to form drainage layers under sports fields, which may otherwise give the appearance of being ‘greenfield’. Other wastes that may have been deposited in the area surrounding now-defunct industries might include spent oxide ‘blue billy’ from coal gasification plants, tannery wastes containing animal fats, and elevated concentrations of chromium and other residues from glassworks and dyeworks. Anthrax is also a possibility on and close to former tannery sites and testing for spores may need to be included in the specification for any intrusive investigation, and reflected in the health and safety specification for the work. Investigators also need to consider other ways in which contaminants might have travelled from sites some distance away. For example, the prevailing wind in the UK is from the south-west and airborne contamination could have been carried from factory chimneys, to result in particulate deposits contaminating land lying several miles to the north-east. From the author’s first-hand experience that may especially be the case with coal-burning industries that used coal with high sulphur content, producing elevated sulphate concentrations in affected soils.

4.3.1

A practical example The best way to take the reader through the process of undertaking a historical study is to use an actual brownfield site that has been investigated and redeveloped. Compiling a historical study used to be extremely time-consuming, albeit often quite interesting, involving many hours spent in local history libraries, planning authority offices and requisitioning searches of pollution incident registers and similar records at the Environment Agency and environmental health departments. In addition to being time-consuming it was also quite expensive, as the different agencies involved required the payment of fees to carry out the searches. Today the work is much simpler, as commercial organisations such as Landmark Information Group are in the business of compiling the relevant information and it is often possible to obtain an electronic EnviroCheck report on the same day as sending in the request. Although a great deal of information is provided in these reports, some degree of interpretation is still required by members of the professional team, such as the environmental consultant, development surveyor and town planner. Landmark Information Group provided an EnviroCheck report for the site used in this practical example and the following case study is based on that report, plus the author’s first-hand knowledge of the site and additional research. The site used for the case study is located on the south side of the town of Northwich, one of Cheshire’s ‘salt towns’. In 1721 an Act of Parliament was obtained to make the River Weaver navigable to Northwich and Winsford, a few miles further south. This work was completed by 1732 and the Weaver was then fully navigable, via 11 locks, by 40-ton barges. Further works of improvement were carried out in the nineteenth century and ‘late in 1865 Leader Williams [the canal engineer later responsible for the Manchester Ship Canal] made his


83

recommendations for river improvement’. Those commenced the same year and were completed in 1897 with the removal of the Newbridge locks (Hadfield and Biddle, 1970, pp. 380–90). The works resulted in deepening of the navigation and the number of locks being reduced to four, with a boat lift at Anderton providing a connection to the Trent and Mersey Canal. The deepening of the navigation and increased size of the remaining locks accommodated larger coasters and the total tonnage on the river increased by around 250,000 tons per annum (Nicholson, 1972; Hadfield, 1979; Shead, 2003). Shipbuilding and related industries were carried out at various places along the banks of the river and its navigation.

Figure 4.2a 1877. Reproduced by permission of Landmark Information Group

84

Land

The site in which we are interested has an area of approximately 2.64 hectares and is adjacent to the west bank of the River Weaver Navigation, marked by a circle on the extract (Figure 4.2a) from the 1 : 2,500 County Series map of 1877. From 1896 to 1966 the site was occupied by W.J. Yarwood & Sons Ltd, Shipbuilders, who during that period constructed around 1030 vessels, mostly coasters, tugs and barges (Guthrie, 1996). In 1877 the land at the centre of the circle was shown as being an orchard. To the east of the circle is the straightened line of the River Weaver, part of the Navigation improvement works. At the north-eastern edge of the circle are the words Shipbuilding Yard and immediately to the north of these words is just discernible the word Smithy. Bear in mind that this map is dated nine years before W.J. Yarwood & Sons are known to have started business, so shipbuilding seems to have been already well established in the area – this is confirmed by Guthrie (1996, p. 2), who notes, ‘In 1840, John Thompson of Macclesfield rented a portion of land from the RWN [River Weaver Navigation], on the west bank of the River Weaver … [and] set up business building wooden barges and sailing flats.’ Guthrie also records the railway viaduct as having been built in 1869. Between the orchard, shipbuilding yard and the Navigation the old river course is clearly visible, meandering almost up to the orchard. To the north of the circle is a road running more or less due north–south, with the name ‘Navigation Road’. To the east of the road it is just possible to read the words River Weaver Navigation Works and on the west side of the road is a row of terraced housing. To the south of the circle is an area of open country, leading to the Navigation towing path and Hunts Lock. The open country is traversed by a railway line, on a high embankment in the western part of the map and then on a viaduct taking it across the river. Just to the north of Hunts Lock the Weaver Navigation is shown as being in a deep cutting. On the east side of the Navigation is the line of the river, which takes the water that bypasses Hunts Lock, controlled by a Flood Gate and a Weir. Several industrial uses are identified on each side of the river including, from north to south, a Smithy, a Foundry (Iron) and a Tannery on the east side of the river, and a Timber yard between the river and the navigation. All these uses are potentially contaminative – see Syms (2004) – but they are likely to be of little concern in terms of waterborne contamination affecting the site under consideration, as the river flows from south to north in this part of Northwich. Immediately to the south of the railway viaduct, adjacent to the east bank of the river, is the Northwich Union Workhouse. To the west of our site are Castle Bank and Hartford Hill, both suggesting that the land rises quite steeply up from the river valley – which is in fact the case. In 1898 – see Figure 4.2(b) – the major features of the River Weaver Navigation, Hunt’s Locks, the course of the river east of the Navigation and the railway embankment and viaduct all appear to be unchanged. The orchard is still present at the centre of the circle on the map, as too is the legend Shipbuilding yard, but the area immediately to the north has undergone considerable expansion, the Smithy is no longer present and the buildings are identified as Castle Dockyard. The River Weaver Navigation Works is shown more clearly than on the earlier map, on both sides of the Navigation, linked by a Swing Bridge, and some


85

Figure 4.2b 1898. Reproduced by permission of Landmark Information Group

buildings may have been added. A Travelling Crane is shown located between the waterfront buildings and Navigation Road. Most of the old river course between the orchard and the Navigation is no longer visible and seems to have been filled in and incorporated into field number 329; the field number system also seems to have changed in the intervening period and was probably still in progress in 1877, judging from the handwritten numbers in the north-east corner of the map. Only the northern part of the old river course remains, as an arm from the Navigation, serving the shipbuilding yard and crossed by a footbridge (F.B.). The land on the island to the east and north of Hunt’s Lock is shown as being a mix of marsh and rough pasture, whereas it was not ascribed a legend in the earlier map.

86

Land

The industrial activities adjacent to the river are still present, but have undergone a number of changes. To the north-east of the navigation works are Wagon Sheet Works (at the extreme northern edge of the map extract) and Weaver Foundry (Iron), in an area that was fields in the 1877 map. The Foundry (Iron) is now named as Leftwich Works (Iron); the tannery is still present but is now called Weaver Leather Works; and several buildings have been added or extended. The Timber Yard and the Northwich Union Workhouse are both still present. In the western part of the map, from just north of the centre of the circle, Navigation Road has been extended in a south-westerly direction and the new section of road is called Spencer Street.

Figure 4.2c 1910. Reproduced by permission of Landmark Information Group


87

By 1910 – see Figure 4.2(c) – the part of the orchard lying north of the centre line of the circle has been developed and the orchard legend is no longer present on the part to the south of the line, which is now given a field number 315. In the eastern part of the circle a field has been developed (numbered 316 on the 1898 map) and it is just possible to see the words Boatbuilding Yard; the part of field 329 along the water frontage also appears to be included in this yard, as the field area of 1.841 acres in 1898 has reduced to 1.518 acres by 1910. The Castle Dockyard buildings crossing the north-east quadrant of the circle have been significantly extended. Most notable is the steep embankment around the arm formed from the northern part of the old river course, which was not shown on either of the earlier maps. This is a clear indication that the land has been raised, probably to enable the extension of the dockyard buildings to take place, to create hard-standing and reduce the risk of flooding. Most of the other features on the map have undergone little by way of change between 1898 and 1910. A large building on the island part of the River Weaver Navigation Works seems to have been demolished. The feature on the north end of the island is now identified as Slips, and the Cranes (C on the 1898 map) appear to have moved from the west to the east side of the island. All the industrial premises are still in existence, with names unchanged from 1898. There is then a large gap in the large-scale Landmark EnviroCheck maps for the area, from 1910 to 1964. The report does, however, include several smaller-scale maps, of which an extract from the 1938 1 : 10,560 scale map is reproduced in Figure 4.2(d). Although lacking detail, this map shows the continued expansion of the ship- and boatbuilding works in a southerly direction to just south of the viaduct on the west bank of the Navigation. A short length of railway line appears to run almost due south from the arm formed out of the old river course. All the industries on the east bank of the river appear to be still in existence, with their names unchanged. The map from 1965–67 is used in the 1 : 1,250 map extract in Figure 4.2(e), as this is clearer than the 1964 map for reproduction purposes. Comparing this map with the 1910 map, the land immediately to the north-east of the centre of the circle, part of the former orchard, has been further developed and by enlarging the map it is just possible to read the words Horton Meadows. The sites formerly occupied by Castle Dockyard, the Shipbuilding Yard and the Boatbuilding Yard all appear to have undergone considerable expansion, extending south as far as the railway viaduct, but the names and legends have been removed and replaced by the single word Works. There are, however, a number of cranes indicated throughout this area, as well as several slips leading into the arms formed by the northern end of the old course of the river. Note also that there is no longer any indication of an embankment around this arm. To the south of the centreline of the circle the former orchard appears to be undeveloped and to have been enlarged by taking in part of field 329. There are also two important features visible on this map, to both the north and south of the railway viaduct. Between Spencer Street and the viaduct is an area that seems to be a land-raise, with a track forming a loop and leading from the works to the east. It suggests that this area of the site may have been used for the disposal of waste materials. To the south of the viaduct and extending in a more or less

88

Land

Figure 4.2d 1938. Reproduced by permission of Landmark Information Group

southerly direction is an area marked as Pond (this appears to be a single feature, although the word is used twice as the feature is bisected by two Ordnance Survey maps). There was no indication on any of the earlier maps of a pond located in this area. The activities of the boatbuilding yard shown in the 1910 map appear to have extended south of the viaduct, along the west bank of the Navigation, indicated by a track leading to the yard and by several mooring posts (MP). To the west and south of the circle there has been extensive housing development, including along the south side of Spencer Street.


89

Figure 4.2e 1965–67. Reproduced by permission of Landmark Information Group

Wagon Sheet Works and Weaver Foundry (Iron) are no longer named on the map and the latter is simply described as Works. Leftwich Works appears to have been mostly demolished and the site seems to be vacant. The premises of Weaver Leather Works have been considerably extended towards the river but, as the name is no longer on the map, there is no indication of the use in 1965–67. The Northwich Union Workhouse is now described as Weaver Hall (County Welfare Home). The northern end of the island formed by the Navigation and the river appears to be largely unchanged and is presumed to

90

Land

still be part of the River Weaver Navigation Works, although this name no longer appears on the map and the main navigation works lying between the river and Navigation Road is described simply as Works. The timber yard is no longer on the island, but a Landing Stage is shown on the Navigation bank immediately south of the works. Part of the island south of the viaduct has been developed with Hunt’s Locks bungalows, whilst the rest of this part of the island is shown as being scrub. On the east bank of the river, north of the viaduct, is an unidentified feature, roughly triangular in shape with a circular structure in the centre.

Figure 4.2f 1970–76. Reproduced by permission of Landmark Information Group


91

The next map in the series is from surveys carried out in 1970–76 – Figure 4.2(f) – and does not include the southernmost part of the site or Hunt’s Locks. By this time all evidence of the ship- and boatbuilding activities has disappeared and almost all of the buildings that had been developed between Navigation Road / Spencer Street and the River Weaver Navigation are no longer in existence. Buildings do still exist, however, on the part of the site fronting Navigation Road, the first part of the orchard to be developed and in 1965–67 labelled Horton Meadows. The label Horton Meadows is also still visible by enlarging the 1970–76 map and at least one of the buildings is labelled Laboratory, as too is a long building on the opposite side of Navigation Road. All map-based evidence of the land-raise between Spencer Street and the viaduct, shown on the 1965–67 map, has been removed but part of the track is still shown, leading almost to the tail of Hunt’s Locks and the mooring posts first seen on the 1965–67 map. The pond south of the railway viaduct is still visible on the 1970–76 map, but appears to be shown as marsh. The arm formed by the remnant of the north end of the old river course cut off by the Navigation is also still visible on the map, but with no detail. More housing development has taken place to the west of the site, including along the entire north-west side of Spencer Street, and a junior school has been constructed as well as three training centres. To the east of the River Weaver the former Wagon Sheet Works is now labelled Boat Repair Yard. The rest of the industrial premises have undergone some minor changes, but there is little to identify the uses of the premises, as the only labels are Works, with some tanks and an electricity sub-station also shown. The unidentified feature, roughly triangular in shape with a circular structure in the centre and seen on the 1965–67 map, is still visible, now with the words Pipe Line and a line on the west side, with a group of buildings immediately to the south labelled Sewage Pumping Station. The final map in the historical series dates from 1993: see Figure 4.2(g). By this time the Horton Meadows site had been redeveloped, with two small blocks of flats labelled Weaver View (note that the EnviroCheck report also included a partial map from 1989, on which the words Weaver View are just visible at the eastern edge of the survey area). The area immediately to the north, on the north-west side of the old river arm from the Navigation, has also been redeveloped, with two terraces of industrial buildings, labelled Riverside Trading Estate. To the south of the centreline of the circle little has changed since the previous map. A track is shown leading from the southern end of the trading estate and the old river arm, curving in a southerly direction towards the viaduct, with a footpath going east from the track to the Navigation. Several footpaths are also shown crossing the land south of the viaduct. North of the site the river navigation premises are still there, but with few clues as to their use. On the island there have been no significant changes. On the east side of the river, however, there seems to have been extensive redevelopment of the industrial area, with the construction of new industrial buildings and various other non-industrial buildings. The Pipe Line feature and the Sewage Pumping Station are still shown on the map.

92

Land

Figure 4.2g 1993. Reproduced by permission of Landmark Information Group

The Landmark EnviroCheck report includes a number of other maps, including a series of smaller scale, 1 : 10,000 and equivalent maps, covering more or less the same time period but with less detail, although covering a wider area. In addition to the historical maps, present-day ones are included in the report and an extract from the 2009 map is reproduced in chapter 7, as part of the case study continuation through the redevelopment of the site. Other maps include large- and small-scale sensitivity maps, such as the example shown in Figure 4.3, and the EnviroCheck is completed with a written report containing information on such matters as abstraction licences and discharge consents, pollution incidents and potentially contaminative uses etc.; see section 4.3.3.


93

Figure 4.3 EnviroCheck flood risk map for Northwich. Reproduced by permission of Landmark Information Group

4.3.2

Maps, scales and other sources of information The practical case study described above gives an indication of the number of changes that can take place over a period of less than 150 years. As well as the different uses shown on the map extracts, it is also clear that various earthworks and other changes to physical features took place over the period, including the disappearance of part of the old river course, the appearance of a new pond, the creation of a land-raise and apparent signs of raising the land level adjacent to the remaining section of the old river course. The latest, pre-redevelopment, map extract of 1993 does not provide evidence of any of these having taken place.

94

Land

The primary map scales used for the historic study were 1 : 2,500 for the older maps and 1 : 1,250 for the newer ones, with the early twentieth-century gap filled by a smaller scale 1 : 10,560 map. Box 4.3 contains a brief explanation of map scales over the period studied. Box 4.3 Map scales and projections (based on information from a Landmark Information Group EnviroCheck report dated 8 September 2009) In 1854 the 1 : 2,500 scale was adopted for mapping urban areas and by 1896 it covered the whole of what were considered to be the cultivated parts of Great Britain. The published date given on the maps is often some years later than the surveyed date. Before 1938 all OS maps were based on the Cassini Projection, with independent surveys of a single county or group of counties, giving rise to significant inaccuracies in outlying areas. In the late 1940s a Provisional Edition was produced, which updated the 1 : 10,560 (6 inches to the mile) mapping from a number of sources. The maps appear unfinished, with all military camps and other strategic sites removed. These maps were initially overprinted with the National Grid. In 1970 the first 1 : 10,000 maps were produced using the Transverse Mercator Projection. The revision process continued until recently, with new editions appearing every 10 years or so for urban areas. The ‘SIM’ cards (Ordnance Survey’s ‘Survey of Information on Microfilm’) are further, minor editions of mapping which were produced and published in between the main editions as an area was updated. They date from 1947 to 1994, and contain detailed information on buildings, roads and land use. These maps were produced at both 1 : 2,500 and 1 : 1,250 scales. SUSI maps (Supply of Unpublished Survey Information) were produced between 1972 and 1977, mainly for internal use at Ordnance Survey. These were more of a ‘work-in-progress’ plan as they showed updates of individual areas on a map. SUSI maps were produced at both 1 : 2,500 and 1 : 1,250 scales and were unpublished, as they did not represent a single moment in time. ‘Large Scale National Grid Data’ superseded SIM cards in 1992, and continued to be produced until 1999. These maps were produced at both 1 : 2,500 and 1 : 1,250 scales and were the forerunners of the digital mapping used today, providing detailed information on houses and roads, but tending to show fewer topographic features such as vegetation. Reproduced by permission of Landmark Information Group.

Historical maps and street directories are not the only sources of information useful for a historical study. Geological maps provide information that is invaluable from a geotechnical point of view when designing foundations, and may also assist in the identification of potential targets for migrating contaminants. Aerial photographs, often held in collections by local libraries or by commercial photography firms, as well as those available on the internet from sources such as Google Maps and Multimap, may provide indications as to changes in site levels, filled watercourses and other features that are no longer visible to the naked eye at ground level. The Coal Authority can provide information as to past mining activities in the area. Local authority planning and environmental health records will provide


95

details concerning previous and present site uses and details of prosecutions under environmental legislation. Environment Agency records may contain relevant information as to discharge consents, water-abstraction licences, pollution incidents and river quality. Wherever possible, employees of the last occupier of the premises should be consulted and records examined to obtain details of products manufactured on the site, the storage of potentially contaminative raw materials and waste disposal practices, recognising that these may have changed over time as environmental regulations became more stringent. Street names and the old names of public houses may provide good indications of the history of an area. For example, names such as Gas Street and the ‘Rolling Mill’ public house are both good indicators of past uses for gas and steel production. Investigators should, however, be wary of public-house names that have been changed – the ‘Slug and Lettuce’ does not mean that the site was previously used as allotments!

4.3.3

Reporting the historical study The report describing the historical study should make reference to all the information sources that have been used and the statutory bodies consulted, if only to record that nothing of an adverse nature was found. A report compiled by the Contaminated Land Advisory Group of the British Urban Regeneration Association (BURA), in conjunction with the NHBC and the RICS Foundation, contains a useful checklist for the historical or ‘desktop’ study (BURA, 2001, pp. 16–17). More recently, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) has published Valuation Information Paper 12 entitled ‘Valuation of development land’ (RICS, 2010a), and the 3rd edition of a Guidance Note: ‘Contamination, the environment and sustainability – their implications for chartered surveyors and their clients’ (RICS, 2010b). The Information Paper discusses the approach to be adopted in the valuation of both greenfield and previously developed sites. The aim of the paper is to assist valuers in the approach to development land valuations. Such valuations are sitespecific and unique, and the paper notes that there are two approaches to the valuation of development land:

• •

comparison with the sale price of land for comparable development; or assessment of the value of the scheme as completed and deduction of the costs of development (including developer’s profit) to arrive at the underlying land value. This is known as the residual method. (RICS, 2010a, p. 1)

The Information Paper emphasises the essential importance of the valuer having an awareness of the characteristics of the site, prior to development, and an adequate knowledge of each of the development components. It also notes that the level of detail that is appropriate when assessing development potential varies according to the purpose of the valuation, with judgement needing to be exercised as to what is required and appropriate in each case.

96

Land

The ‘contamination’ guidance note observes that most chartered surveyors do not have the specialist skills required to investigate contamination, and it is primarily these surveyors at whom the guidance is aimed. It goes on to state, ‘Whether acting for clients, employers or in the public interest, surveyors cannot ignore the possible existence of contamination, the effects of contamination on value, the management of land and property, land use, development and the reuse of land and buildings; as well as the obligations on surveyors that arise from this duty’ (RICS, 2010b, p. 1). The same cautionary warning should apply to professionals of all disciplines involved in the redevelopment or reuse of previously developed land, and all surveys or investigations should be carried out within the sphere of competence of the individuals or organisations involved. Conducting a full historical study can be very time-consuming, especially if a hand search of local authority and Environment Agency files is to be carried out, involving visits to many places. The cost for a consultant to undertake such a study may be beyond the figure that the client is prepared to pay at this early stage, when the developer does not have a binding contract with the site owner and may even be in a bidding situation. In such situations reports from organisations such as Landmark Information Group can prove invaluable in developing an understanding of the historical situation regarding a site but, as demonstrated above, even these need careful interpretation. For the site under consideration in the practical example, the ‘non-map’ Landmark EnviroCheck report revealed the information summarised in Box 4.4. Box 4.4 provides a very brief summary of the information contained in a 45page report and, as will be appreciated, the information available from commercial data providers can be very comprehensive. Nevertheless, for all but the simplest previously developed sites, the intending developer is likely to require the services of a consultant with an environmental training to interpret the data.

4.4

Walk-over survey Having completed the historical study, the next stage is to carry out a walk-over survey. The purpose of this survey is to identify anything that might have a material effect on either or both of the physical investigation of the site and its eventual redevelopment. Contamination is a major issue, but there may be other environmental and physical matters of concern. These could include, for example, noise and odours emanating from adjoining properties and those should be recorded for further investigation. Other than environmental matters there may be aspects of the site, such as remnants of industrial archaeology, or wildlife habitats, that could either constrain the development or, conversely, would be advantageous to retain. In many situations it may be appropriate for the consultant conducting the walk-over survey to be accompanied by the developer, or by someone from the design team, so as to discuss on site any potential issues that may affect the design and execution of the project. The RICS Development Land Information Paper (RICS, 2010a) suggests that physical inspection of the site could include the following, although the list is not intended to be exhaustive or to apply to every case:


• • • • • • •

97

extent of the site – in order to ascertain frontage, width and depth, gross and developable areas; shape of the site and ground contours – ideally in the form of a topographical survey; history of previous, and risk of future, flooding; sizes of any existing buildings. Where buildings are to be retained it is recommended that measurements are taken in accordance with the RICS Code of Measuring Practice, available from www.rics.org; existing building height and that of adjoining properties; efficiency of existing building(s) (if to be retained); any matters that could result in excessive abnormal costs (such as constrained site conditions, and poor or limited access), from development and occupational perspectives;

Box 4.4 Summary of information from a Landmark Information Group EnviroCheck report on land at Navigation Road, Northwich, Cheshire On Site • Groundwater Vulnerability – minor aquifer, soils of high leaching potential • Brine compensation area – may be affected by subsidence due to salt extraction • Possible Ground Stability Hazards • Nitrate-vulnerable zone Within 0–250 m from the site boundary • 10 Discharge consents • 3 Pollution Incidents to Controlled Waters • Potential for Landslide and/or other Ground Stability Hazards • Some areas affected by flooding or extreme risk of flooding from Rivers or Seas without flood defences • Nine Industrial Land Use Contemporary Trade Directory Entries 251–500 m from the site boundary • Five Discharge Consents • One local authority Pollution Prevention and Control authorisation revoked • 17 Pollution Incidents to Controlled Waters • One Local Authority Recorded Landfill Site • 25 Industrial Land Use Contemporary Trade Directory Entries 501–1000 m from the site boundary • 30 Discharge Consents • 34 Pollution Incidents to Controlled Waters • One local authority Pollution Prevention and Control authorisation revoked and one permitted • Two British Geological (BGS) Recorded Landfill Sites • Two Historical Landfill Sites • Two Local Authority Recorded Landfill Sites • 32 Industrial Land Use Contemporary Trade Directory Entries • One Local Nature Reserve

98

Land

• • • • • • • • •

party wall, boundary and rights of light issues; geotechnical conditions; evidence of, or potential for, contamination; availability and capacity of infrastructure (such as roads, public transport, mains drainage, water, gas, electricity and telephony); evidence of other head or occupational interests in the property, whether actual or implied by law; physical evidence of the existence of rights of way, easements, encumbrances, overhead power lines, open water courses, mineral workings, tunnels, filling, tipping, etc.; the presence of archaeological features. These may be evident, or there may be a high probability of their presence due to the site location (for instance, close to city centres); evidence of waste management obligations and whether those obligations have been fulfilled; and water or mineral extraction rights that may be available. (RICS, 2010a, pp. 3–4)

Individual consultants will have their own methods for conducting the survey, but the following is a good practical approach. Starting outside the subject property, consider first the security of the perimeter fences, walls and gates. If they are not secure, unoccupied properties become open invitations to fly-tipping, i.e. the illegal disposal of wastes. Even if no illegal materials have been tipped at the time the developer first visited the site, or at the time of the walk-over survey, it is highly likely that, by the time the site acquisition has been completed, an insecure site will have been targeted by fly-tippers. The risk of fly-tipping has increased significantly in recent years, as the unscrupulous seek to avoid the high cost of waste disposal at licensed sites, especially with regard to hazardous wastes. Having checked on the perimeter security, and having determined whether or not any illegally tipped materials are present on the site, the survey should next focus on possible sources of contamination identified from the historical study, e.g. storage tanks, lagoons, apparent changes in level. These areas should be examined for visible signs of contamination, such as unusual colouring of the ground; an oily sheen on any water areas; discoloured and/or stunted vegetation or a lack of vegetation; debris from demolition and/or the removal of tanks and plant. This last point is particularly important, as potential contaminants that were not causing any problems when the site was unoccupied could become spread across the site while poorly planned decommissioning or plant removal is carried out. To illustrate the point, several years ago the author arrived at a large former industrial site in Yorkshire to carry out a walk-over survey, which happened to coincide with the removal of several very large pieces of machinery. These were housed in buildings clad with corrugated asbestos cement, but instead of carefully removing the cladding materials the sides of the buildings were being smashed open with excavators. Broken fragments of asbestos cement were then being spread far and wide across the site through the movement of numerous vehicles, and probably through the air and watercourses as well.


99

Soil conditions should be considered, together with the state of any bodies of water on the site. It may be appropriate to take samples of surface soils and water, if anything suspicious or unusual is noted, so the survey team should be equipped with suitable bags and jars for samples, trowel or other implement for taking samples, and a pH soil-testing kit, as well as measuring equipment in order to record the locations from which samples have been removed. A comprehensive photographic record should be taken and a written description made of all features or matters of concern. Once the locations of highest concern, identified from the historical study, have been examined, the survey should be extended across all remaining areas of the site, photographing and recording all items of interest. Health and safety issues cannot be stressed too strongly; closed industrial sites are dangerous places. Ideally one person should not conduct walk-over surveys on their own as, apart from safety issues, two people are more likely to spot signs of contamination than one. If, however, someone has to conduct the survey alone they should be equipped with a mobile phone, and someone in the office should know where they are and how long the survey is likely to take. All members of the survey team should be equipped with work boots, masks, hard hats, gloves, protective clothing and any other personal protective equipment (PPE) appropriate to the nature of the site being surveyed. The former Department of the Environment (now Defra) commissioned a series of Contaminated Land Reports (CLRs) to assist with the task of investigating and remediating contaminated land. Although now somewhat dated, these can still provide a template for the work involved and CLR 2 Guidance on Preliminary Site Inspection of Contaminated Land (Applied Environmental Research Centre Ltd, 1994) goes into more detail regarding the indicators of possible contamination. Volume 1 of the report includes a useful checklist, while volume 2 describes a range of abiotic and biotic indicators that are all detectable by sight or smell:

• •

Abiotic indicators include: debris and structures on site; anomalies in topography and soil between the site and adjacent land or within the site; the presence of characteristics and odours. Biotic indicators are related to the biological features of the site and include: the type of animal or plant species present; symptoms of effects of contamination in any species; the condition of the soil. (Applied Environmental Research Centre Ltd, 1994, p. 1)

The RICS guidance note Contamination, the Environment and Sustainability: Their implications for chartered surveyors and their clients (RICS, 2010b) is intended to provide guidance, information and assistance to surveyors who are not specialists in the investigation of contamination and environmental matters, or in the preparation of land-quality statements, environmental screenings, sustainability surveys or other reports. Its aims are to:

•

define the professional responsibilities of surveyors (where not defined by specific instructions), having regard to the current law and the limitations of professional indemnity insurance (PII);

100

Land

• • •

provide a guide to the identification of possible contamination and environmental matters, and to the investigations appropriate to them; identify aspects of the relevant legal duties arising from contamination and environmental matters; outline the roles of other professionals, and assist surveyors to brief (or help their clients to brief or instruct) chartered environmental surveyors, or environmental specialists to undertake appropriate investigations; help surveyors to consider specialists’ reports, and to appreciate the respective risk categories; and recommend standard reporting phrases for use by surveyors in particular circumstances. (RICS, 2010b, section 1.4)

• •

Box 4.5 contains a brief summary of the observations made during the walkover survey of the Northwich case study site.

Box 4.5 Summary of observations from walk-over survey at Navigation Road, Northwich, Cheshire • • • • • •

•

•

•

•

The northern, western and south-western boundaries of the site were all unfenced and ungated. The eastern boundary was formed by the River Weaver Navigation. There was no readily visible evidence of any illegal tipping having taken place. The site was heavily vegetated, with several young trees having become well established. The remains of several brick and stone structures, up to three metres high, were observed. There was no evidence of any open sewers or similar hazards on the site. Several areas of the site were noted as having unnatural land formations, and a local resident informed the survey team that land in the westernmost part of the site, between Spencer Street and the railway viaduct (the ‘land-raise’ area), had been used for the on-site disposal of wastes. A number of vehicular and pedestrian tracks were noted and several cars were parked on the site – these were found to be owned by anglers fishing on the banks of the navigation. Two areas of land south of the viaduct, approximately in the position of the pond feature noted on some of the maps, were observed to be devoid of vegetation and having the appearance of a ‘salt flat’. A potentially important wetland area was noted in the south-west corner of the site, south of the viaduct – there was no boundary definition in this area, but it was apparent that this feature also extended onto adjoining land. Local enquiries revealed that a brine-pumping main ran approximately east to west across the northern part of the site, from the ‘pipeline’ feature noted on the east bank of the River Weaver, just north of the viaduct and the sewage treatment works, continuing along the southern boundary of the Weaver View flats – it was subsequently found that an easement for the pumping mains (two pipes) and their working area imposed some constraints on this part of the site.


4.5

101

Intrusive and other forms of site investigation The information gathered from the historical study and the walk-over survey can then be used to design the intrusive investigation and determine whether any other specialist surveys or investigations are required, such as archaeological or ecological studies. While the historical information may not be essential from a geotechnical perspective, it is of the utmost importance for the geo-environmental work. This is because the geotechnical investigation is primarily concerned with the new buildings and structures, whereas the geo-environmental investigator is more interested in past activities. Nevertheless, the two do coincide and it is possible to design combined investigations. Historical data may be of benefit to the designer of the foundations for the new buildings, for example in identifying water features or other depressions in the ground that might have been filled, and areas of contamination, both of which could possibly be avoided through slight modifications of the site layout. The information also may be required to prepare a health and safety plan under the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 (see www.hse.gov.uk/ construction/cdm.htm). Similarly the geotechnical information could be of use to the environmental consultant, for example if it showed the presence of sand lenses in the clay underlying a contaminated site, as those could constitute a possible pollutant pathway. It is important to avoid the temptation to simply tack one investigation onto the other, e.g. by sending samples taken for technical evaluation for chemical analysis, without considering whether they are appropriate or not. Soil and water samples obtained in this way may have been taken from inappropriate locations, without any thought as to possible specific areas of contamination, with inadequate logging of the investigation and insufficient sampling. The Association of Geotechnical and Geo-environmental Specialists (AGS), a non-profit-making trade association, was established to improve the profile and quality of geotechnical and geo-environmental engineering. It publishes a number of informative guidance documents to assist with the investigation of previously developed sites, including Guidelines for Combined Geo-environmental and Geotechnical Investigation (Association of Geotechnical and Geo-environmental Specialists, 2000). This provides guidance for the design and execution of site investigations, describing the most appropriate procedures for carrying out combined geoenvironmental and geotechnical investigations so that potential technical conflicts do not arise. It makes the point that, provided the technical requirements of each type of investigation are met, geotechnical and geo-environmental investigations can be carried out at the same time, bringing many advantages – not least the avoidance of unnecessary duplication of time and costs. The AGS also publishes a useful information sheet Land Contamination: Information for purchasers and owners of potentially contaminated land (April 2009), which can be downloaded free of charge from the Association’s website at www.ags.org.uk. The information sheet provides readers with the legal definition of Contaminated Land, lists the four ‘receptor’ groups and explains how owners or prospective purchasers can find out whether a site is potentially contaminated. The Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA) has published Brownfields: Managing the development of previously developed land. A

102

Land

client’s guide (2002), providing a framework for managing brownfield issues logically and methodically. Issues are addressed using the stages of the development process, so that the guidance can be incorporated into management systems. The guide can also help clients to identify their own technical limitations, and equip them with the tools they need when appointing and managing a specialist team of advisers. CIRIA also publishes a wide range of other reports, including technical guidance, such as Assessing Risks posed by Hazardous Ground Gases to Buildings (revised 2007) (C665), which aims to ensure a consistent approach to decision making, particularly with respect to the need for, and scope of, remedial/protective design measures while remaining flexible enough to be relevant to site-specific and development variables. In addition, CIRIA manages the contaminated-land.org website which, in May 2009, contained summaries of over 300 records of goodpractice guidance for risk assessment, risk management and remediation of contaminated land. The British Standards Institution (BSI) has produced a Code of Practice for Site Investigations – BS 5930 (1999); it also publishes a Code of Practice for the Investigation of Potentially Contamination Sites BS 10175 (2001) – see Boxes 4.6 and 4.7 respectively.

Box 4.6 Code of Practice for site investigations (source: BSI website – http://shopbsigroup.com) BS 5930 deals with the investigation of sites for assessing their suitability for civil engineering and building works and to acquire knowledge of the characteristics of a site that affect the design and construction of such work, including the security of neighbouring land and property. It assumes that in the selection of construction sites due regard has been paid to the wider environmental and economic considerations affecting the community, as more than one site may require detailed investigation before the final choice is made. In this code, the expression Site Investigation has been used in its wider sense. It is to be noted, however, that although the treatment of ground investigation is detailed, the treatment of other aspects of site investigation is less detailed. The use of soil and rock as construction materials is treated only briefly; further information is given in BS 6031. BS 5930 consists of the following sections: – Section 1: Preliminary considerations; – Section 2: Ground investigations; – Section 3: Field investigations; – Section 4: Field tests; – Section 5: Laboratory tests on samples; – Section 6: Description of soils and rocks; – Section 7: Reports and interpretation. Amendment 1 to BS 5930 (primarily to Section 6) removes text superseded by BS EN ISO 14688 1:2002, BS EN ISO 14688-2:2004 and BS EN ISO 14689-1:2003, and makes reference to the relevant standard for each affected subclause.


103

Box 4.7 Code of Practice for the investigation of potentially contaminated sites (source: BSI website – http://shopbsigroup.com) BS 10175:2001 provides guidance on, and recommendations for, the investigation of potentially contaminated land. It also includes land with naturally enhanced concentrations of potentially harmful materials. It covers: • • • • • •

setting the objectives of an investigation; setting a strategy for the investigation; designing the different phases of the investigation; sampling and on-site testing; laboratory analysis; reporting.

in order to obtain scientifically robust data on soil, groundwater, surface water and ground gas contamination. BS 10175 does not give recommendations on constraints or problems that can affect a site, such as geotechnical aspects, or the legal aspects, including the need for licences, permits, etc.

In October 2009 the BSI Soil Quality Group announced that it wished to receive Expressions of Interest from anyone interested in undertaking the task of updating BS10175 in line with current guidance, standards and practice. It is therefore likely that within the next few years this Code of Practice will be replaced or revised. If the geo-environmental and geotechnical reports are to be combined, then the investigator should take care to observe the guidance provided by the AGS, CIRIA and the BSI, ensuring that the pattern of investigation is carefully designed so as to obtain the required information for both structural design and any required decontamination. This is briefly described in Syms, 1997 (pp. 79–83) and a wealth of guidance exists on the subject, including volume III Site investigation and assessment of the CIRIA reports series Remedial Treatment for Contaminated Land (CIRIA, 1995) and Contaminated Land Report No.4 Sampling Strategies for Contaminated Land (CRBE, 1994). The journal Land Contamination and Reclamation also regularly publishes articles relating to the investigation, assessment and remediation of contaminated sites, often based on informative case studies. Specialist guidance is also published in respect of some specific industries, such as the Guidelines for Investigation and Remediation of Petroleum Retail Sites (The Institute of Petroleum, 1998). The site investigation methods employed on the site used for the physical example are summarised in Box 4.8. 4.5.1 Sampling strategies Soil samples obtained from boreholes are important to the geotechnical consultant in assessing the bearing capacity of the ground, but they are of only limited

104

Land

Box 4.8 Site investigation at Navigation Road, Northwich (based on AEA Technology, 1996) The site investigation was undertaken by AEA Technology. The site was investigated using a series of boreholes, mainly along the river navigation boundary, shallow boreholes advanced with a percussion window sampler, and trial pits. It was found that the site had an upper horizon of glacial sand, which sloped downwards from the Navigation Road/Spencer Street boundary towards the river, covered at the bottom of the slope by alluvium. The alluvium had a minimum thickness of 3.3 m. Below the alluvial/ glacial sand was boulder clay of at least 11.4 m thickness, but the total thickness of this formation was not proven. Sand and gravel lenses, up to 2.5 m thick, were found in the clay. An ash/clinker fill was deposited on top of the alluvium and glacial sand to varying depths. On the majority of the alluvium/glacial sand the thickness of fill was 0.6–1.8 m. As the site rose towards Spencer Street (i.e. in the area identified as having been a depository for industrial wastes), the fill formed a ‘wedge’ that lessened the original slope of the underlying alluvium and glacial sand. At its thickest this fill was 3.8 m thick. The site investigation found that the majority of the contamination on the site was associated with the fill layer in both the northern and southern areas (i.e. north and south of the railway viaduct). The contamination in the fill was found to be the potentially toxic heavy metals arsenic, lead, mercury and cadmium, and the phytotoxins copper, zinc and nickel. The contamination was widespread, with only a few isolated areas where the fill could be said to be contaminant-free. There were also ‘hot spot’ areas containing polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) and petroleum hydrocarbons. From the groundwater samples it appeared that the contaminants in the fill material had limited leachability. The site remediation and redevelopment of this case study is continued in chapter 7.

use for environmental purposes. This is especially the case if the area under investigation is composed of ‘made ground’, i.e. has been filled to raise the ground above its natural level or to remove a hollow or other natural feature. Boreholes are useful, however, in terms of being able to obtain groundwater samples and for ground gas monitoring. Trial pits and trial trenches are, generally speaking, of more use in geoenvironmental investigations, as they enable the investigator to get a clearer view of the substances in the ground and their different strata, as well as providing the opportunity to obtain a photographic record. This approach is valuable when made ground is being investigated, as the nature of the fill materials might change in very short distances. The nature of the investigation and its requirements might also indicate a need for changes to be made to the way in which trial pit information is logged. The developer or landowner needs to understand how the investigation was carried out and this should be transparently stated in the report. This


105

includes the rationale behind the sampling strategy, which is all too often missing from consultants’ reports. The above caution was included in the first edition of Land, Development and Design but, regrettably, it is still the case that some consultants’ reports fail to make clear the thinking behind their site investigation designs and sampling strategies (perhaps they are trying to shroud their work in some type of mystery). The first edition included an example trial trench log, showing how different strata in the fill material had been recorded. Several people have since commented to the author that they found this example to be useful and therefore it is reproduced here; see Figure 4.4. The log clearly shows the different types of fill material encountered and the remains of organic matter at the base of the excavation. This trial trench was carried out on a former lake that had been filled and the organic matter was possibly decayed vegetation that had been growing in the lake before it was filled. The use of an appropriate sampling strategy is vital in ensuring that maximum information is obtained from the trial pits or trenches. Sampling frequency should be in line with the best-practice documents referred to above. It may, for example, include a sample from near the surface (say in the top 0.5 m of soil), in order to ascertain the condition of the soil lying closest to possible receptors such as human beings and plants, and then every metre to the base of the excavation, so as to determine the extent and differing concentrations of any contaminants that may be present. To give an example, contamination occurring at the surface of a site underlain by clay subsoil may be retained near the surface, whereas with sandy subsoil the contaminants can migrate downwards, resulting in higher concentrations at depth. If fill materials are encountered, the report should show that samples have been taken of each different type of material encountered, with their location and the thickness of strata being carefully recorded. Wherever possible the deepest sample from a filled site should be of natural ground, say 200–250 mm beneath the interface with the fill material. The site investigator may also wish to take deeper samples from below the made ground in order to assess the extent of any contaminant migration. A trial pit log which records that ‘natural ground was not encountered’ is deficient and of little use in ascertaining both the extent of any contaminated material and whether it is migrating into the natural ground, whether as leachate or otherwise. This has implications for the design of the site investigation and for the type of machinery used to undertake the excavations. A wheeled excavator will normally reach to a depth of 3 to 3.5 m, with a maximum of around 4 m. If the historical study and the walk-over survey indicate that greater depths of heterogeneous fill may be present, which is not unusual on former waste disposal sites, then it would be more appropriate to hire a tracked excavator with the ability to excavate to depths of around 6 m. This will be more expensive than a wheeled machine, but the quality of the investigation should be improved. The report should indicate the type of equipment used and any constraints encountered, such as impenetrable obstructions, as well as any testing or analysis carried out on site.

106

Land

Plan

600 mm 10 m N

Section

0.2 – 0.6 – 1.0 –

1

3 4

2

5 6

7 2.1 – 2.4 – 2.9 –

– 0.3 – 0.5

8 9 North face of pit

Description and samples

Strata Ref. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Water 1

Topsoil Brown subsoil with roots Topsoil with ash. Fragments of brick and glass Black/grey ash Yellow/green paste like material Grey/brown clay fill with brick and timber fragments Black/grey/red slag and ash Silt with decomposed organic matter Red/brown stiff clay

Depth encountered 1.3 m

Name of consultant Site Trial pit record

S 1 - bag S 2 - bag S 3 - jar S 4 - bag WS 1 - jar S 5 - bag

Comments See page from strata 7

Park House Scale NTS

Figure 4.4 Example trial trench log in made ground

Date 24-Jul-01

Number TP 4


4.5.2

107

Laboratory analysis This part of the site investigation can, very easily, be at least as expensive as the historical study, walk-over survey and physical investigation combined – but it must not be skimped. From the developer’s perspective this is often seen as being wasted money if the project is abandoned or the site is sold to someone else. It can also be the means of saving a great deal of money and significantly reducing the risks attached to the development. To reiterate a point from above, it is important to ensure that plenty of soil and, where encountered, groundwater samples are taken during the course of the site investigation. The cost of collecting, containing, transporting and storing samples is infinitesimal compared to that of having to return to site and repeat part of the investigation due to an insufficient number of samples having been taken. That does not mean, however, that every single sample has to be analysed in the laboratory, as it may be possible to adopt a phased approach. If, for example, the subsoil and underlying clay appear to be generally uniform across the site, then an initial phase of testing could include representative samples from, say, every third or fourth sampling location. The rest of the first-phase testing would comprise representative samples of any bulk fill materials, such as ash and slag, plus any anomalous materials. Any odorous or suspected volatile materials should also be included in the first-phase analysis. It should be emphasised that taking a phased approach of this type does not remove the need to take all the samples called for in the site investigation strategy. This type of approach is really possible only if the consultant responsible for the site investigation is on site during the intrusive work and thus is able to select samples for analysis on the basis of personal observations. There must be a fully documented ‘chain of custody’ for samples taken during the site investigation and samples not selected for initial analysis should be fully labelled and properly stored in a secure part of the laboratory premises. Laboratories have limited storage facilities and it is important to agree the length of time for which samples, tested and untested, will be stored. Adopting a staged approach to the laboratory analysis will, inevitably, lengthen the duration of the site investigation, as laboratories normally have a standard turn-round period of 10–12 working days, but the initial analysis should provide enough information for the developer to decide whether or not to proceed further with the project. If the developer is in a competitive situation for the site, it may be possible to shorten the laboratory’s standard turn-round period by requesting an expedited report, which will incur an extra charge. The environmental consultant is responsible for ensuring that the laboratory to which the samples have been consigned for analysis has in place appropriate quality control measures and is accredited under the Environment Agency’s Monitoring Certification (MCERTS) for chemical testing of soil and/or water as appropriate; see the Environment Agency’s policy statement at www.environmentagency.gov.uk/static/documents/Business/mcerts_policy_v2_1404400.pdf. This provides assurance to all stakeholders (e.g. laboratories, local authorities,

108

Land

consultants, developers and members of the public) as to the reliability of data from the analysis of soils. Accreditation is carried out by the United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS) on behalf of the Environment Agency, and the MCERTS performance standard for the chemical testing of soil is an application of ISO 17025:2000 specifically for the chemical testing of soil. It covers:

• • • • •

the selection and validation of methods; sampling pretreatment and preparation; the estimation of measurement uncertainty; anticipation in proficiency testing schemes; the reporting of results and information.

It is also the responsibility of the environmental consultant to ensure that the suite of substances tested for is appropriate to the types of historical activity identified as having taken place on the site, although the laboratory manager may be able to assist in deciding upon the specific types of analysis to be undertaken. Syms (2004, pp. 158–224) describes almost 40 types of industrial process and activity, used across many different industries, and lists the types of contaminant that may be encountered. Laboratories that are regularly involved in the testing of potentially contaminated soils may have a standard suite of analyses, covering the most common heavy metals, organic and inorganic compounds, PAHs and sulphates, for which they make a standard charge and to which other substances can be added at additional cost. The rationale behind the selection of contaminants to be tested for should be clearly stated in the site investigation report. If, on the basis of the initial results, the developer decides to proceed with the project, the remaining samples should be analysed and a full site investigation report produced. If no significant contamination was revealed from the initial analysis, the temptation to terminate the investigation at the partcomplete stage should be avoided. A full site investigation report, setting out the state of the site at the commencement of the project, is an important document and may be crucial in obtaining development finance and the developer’s ability to sell the development on completion. The developer may also wish to ensure that any contract to purchase the site is conditional on the final investigation report not disclosing a situation that is worse than indicated from the initial results.

4.6

The final report It is essential that the final report draws together the various phases of the site investigation and the analytical work, including the conclusions and recommendations arrived at by the consultant. The report should be clear, well ordered and not overly technical, so as to be understood by non-specialist readers, such as the developer client, financial institutions, planning and environmental health


109

officers, surveyors and lawyers. It should also include an Executive Summary as, in all likelihood, this is all that will be read by senior management. In some cases, for example when site investigation and remediation are the subject of planning conditions, there may be an obligation to demonstrate that health and environmental risks have been adequately assessed. The AGS has published a Guide to Good Practice in Writing Ground Reports (Association of Geotechnical and Geo-environmental Specialists, 2007) which is the third in a series of guidance documents. The Guide aims to help improve the style, language and terminology used in reports. The other two related documents, published in 2005, are Guidelines for the preparation of Ground Report and Management of risk associated with the preparation of Ground Reports. All three documents can be downloaded from the AGS website. The report should summarise all the work carried out, the findings of the investigation and an interpretation of the results. Any variations in the investigation as originally designed, and the reasons for them, should be noted. Likewise, any constraints or difficulties encountered in the investigation itself, or in the interpretation of the findings, should be specified. Particular attention should be paid to the graphical content of the report, e.g. location maps, site plans, logs and photographs. The report should also state the area of the site, in hectares – something that is often omitted from consultants’ reports – as if site plans have been reduced in size during the copying process they may be misleading. A section of the report should provide an assessment of the site investigation findings and, where appropriate, their significance in terms of any proposed development. The basis of the risk assessment, and any limitations, should be made clear; see also chapter 8. Calculations, modelling data and any assumptions used in preparing a Conceptual Site Model, should be stated in full, together with reference to any health and safety matters. Any remaining uncertainties should be reported upon and source materials fully referenced, with an explanation as to why they have been selected. As stated in the preceding sections, the rationale for design of the site investigation, the sampling strategy and the suite of laboratory analyses must be clearly set out in the report. As a minimum, the content of a final investigation and assessment report should include the items listed in Box 4.9. Only when a fully comprehensive report has been received will the developer, in consultation with the project team, be able to adequately comprehend the implications of any previous uses on the site, their legacy and the potential impact of any contamination on the proposed development. The report may outline a number of options for site remediation and it is important that the letting or selling agent, including the investment sales surveyor, is involved in these deliberations. There is rarely just one remediation option available and different solutions may have significant implications for the end value of the development (see chapters 8 and 9). Above all, the report should clearly demonstrate that its predetermined objectives have been met or, if that has not been possible, it should explain why they have not been achieved. It must also record that appropriate quality control and quality assurance procedures have been followed throughout the entire process.

110

Land

Box 4.9 Content of a final site investigation and assessment report (based on ECOTEC and EAU, 1993, Box 3.17) Introduction

Strategy and methods

Field work

Sampling and analysis

Chain of custody

Observations

Laboratory reporting

Discussion of results

Assessment of findings

Conclusions and Recommendations

Appendices

Terms of reference Summary of previous work (including the preliminary investigation report) Site description and proposed end use Constraints on the investigation or assessment General field conditions at the time(s) of the investigation Scope of works Programme and any variations Methods used Health and safety provision Environmental protection measures employed Quality assurance plan Description of the rationale and methods used to locate sampling positions, collect and store samples, and conduct in situ testing Inspection and testing (e.g. boreholes, trial pits, spike tests) Monitoring installations Supplementary investigation and monitoring Methods and reference standards used Quality assurance and control COSHH assessment (Control of Substances Hazardous to Health) Sample receipt and storage Sample preparation and sub-sampling Sample analysis Sample results Sample disposal General ground conditions (including field description of samples) Geological/hydrological regime Other features (e.g. flora and fauna) Analytical results Variations to analytical programme Accuracy, sensitivity, precision, bias Sample retention/disposal Results of field investigation(s) Results of laboratory analyses Limitations of the data (if any) Detailed discussion of the rationale and procedures followed Reference data used to conduct the risk assessment, risk estimation and risk evaluation Degree and extent of contamination on site Significance of observed levels of contamination Recommendations on appropriate course of action Contamination-related objectives to be achieved when remedial action is recommended Location map and site plan(s) Historical maps and copies of trade directory entries if appropriate Geological and sensitivity maps Graphic logs, boreholes etc. (including details of any monitoring wells) Monitoring and analytical data Photographic records


4.7

111

Summary The processes of site acquisition, investigation and assessment can all be extremely complex, requiring inputs from several different professions. They all have to be undertaken with the greatest rigour, for mistakes at any of these stages can have disastrous consequences at later stages in the development project. The practical case study and other examples in this chapter explain how to undertake the different aspects of the work involved and the pitfalls that may be encountered along the way. The end result of these stages of the development project should be a thorough understanding of the site, its history, legal context and physical condition. In order that this understanding can be achieved it is necessary to ensure that the different consultants are adequately briefed and this is often the responsibility of the development surveyor. There is a great deal of guidance available to assist in preparing briefs and in describing best practice, but the person preparing the brief should always be prepared to ask for advice from colleagues or other professionals who may have more experience in some of the more specific aspects of the work involved. The success of the project will largely depend on assembling the most suitable project team, so as to draw on the skills of the different professions. But above all else, everything found out about the site should be recorded in writing.

4.8

Checklist

• • • • • •

Ensure that full information is obtained in respect of any subsidiary interests in the land, legal or otherwise. Make full use of historical maps and data, and, when a commercial data provider is used, ensure that the information is adequately interpreted. Carry out a comprehensive site walk-over. Co-ordinate geotechnical and geo-environmental survey requirements. Ensure that sample strategies, chain of custody and testing regimes are clearly described in site investigation reports. Keep detailed notes of all site inspections and information obtained.

The final report should be comprehensive, written in plain English and not overly technical.

5

Environment and Ecological Considerations John Handley and Karen Nolan

5.1

Introduction Following the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, there has been a progressive strengthening of the imperative for sustainable development. That has been reflected in European policy directives, UK legislation and planning guidance; see also chapters 2 and 8. The drive for sustainable development has gained a sharper cutting edge owing to concerns about climate change: both the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (mitigation) and to adapt so as to manage impacts and realise opportunities in a fast-changing climate (adaptation). Environmental assessment within the planning process is therefore moving well beyond the protection of environmental assets during development to consider the long-term implications of that development in a changing climate. This chapter begins by explaining the process of natural colonisation of brownfield land, leading to the formation of new habitats, and describes survey procedures for identifying ecological assets that may be incorporated into project design in a positive way or that may represent potential liabilities to the would-be developer. The legislative framework within which judgements can be made about the importance of these ecological attributes is described. We go on to discuss the nature of climate change and the way in which well-recognised risks, such as flooding, are likely to intensify. Existing and emergent legislation in this area is discussed, together with associated implications for the development process. Finally, the chapter broadens out the discussion to examine the impact of development from a sustainable development perspective, including the Code for Sustainable Homes and new procedures for climate proofing development.

5.2

Natural colonisation of brownfield land The historical map extract, Figure 5.1(a), shows part of the Pocket Nook area of St Helens as it existed in 1894. This was one of a series of maps used as the practical case study in the site-assessment chapter in the first edition of Land, Development and Design. The map illustrates very well the scale and intensity of the industrial development process, dominated by alkali works, glass works and other chemical-related industries. The changing spectrum of industrial activity Land, Development and Design, 2e. By Paul Syms © 2010 Paul Syms

Environment and Ecological Considerations

113

Figure 5.1a Part of the Pocket Nook area of St Helens, 1894

over time is illustrated by the map extract in Figure 5.1(b), which shows the same area 35 years later, even more extensively developed and criss-crossed by a network of canals and railways. Yet by the end of the twentieth century almost all industrial activity had ceased in the area and many of the rows of terraced housing were demolished – activities likely to bring important environmental consequences. St Helens has been described as an archetypal industrial town (Barker and Harris, 1993) and in his classic account of the evolution of the English landscape, W.G. Hoskins describes St Helens as ‘the most appalling town of all where [in the late eighteenth century] the atmosphere was being poisoned, every green thing blighted and every stream fouled with chemical fumes and waste’ (Hoskins, 1970, p. 222). Much of this despoliation came in an era of minimal environmental regulation – indeed, early attempts at legislation to control gaseous emissions of hydrochloric acid were focused on the alkali industry that features on the 1894 map (Figure 5.1a). It might well be imagined that the only environmental issue to be considered by a prospective developer in situations such as that would be the problem of residual contamination, which is considered in some detail in chapters 4 and 8; but there is another perspective. When industrial land becomes disused, nature is quick to take advantage and the process of colonisation and natural succession

114

Land

Figure 5.1b The same area in 1929

begins (Ash, 1991). Given the low fertility and wide range of substrate conditions encountered in the post-industrial landscape (with extremes of pH and water availability), analogues of plant communities develop here that have become increasingly scarce in the intensively farmed countryside. In the landscape covered by Figures 5.1a and 5.1b there are emergent wetlands, chalky herb-rich communities, acid grasslands, and even an incipient salt marsh. Many of these new habitats have been designated in the Local Plan as sites of Local Biological Interest and afforded a degree of protection from development. It is important that developers are aware of these positive environmental attributes of the site and its surroundings – first and foremost because good design works with the grain of nature and makes the most of the environmental capital on site. Second, these environmental attributes are increasingly valued by society. We now recognise that urban green space provides us with a wide range of ecosystem services, including regulatory functions such as flood control and evaporative cooling, which are of increasing importance in a changing climate (Defra, 2007a). It includes a new recognition of the importance of soils and soil conservation, which are receiving much greater attention, not only in protecting productive farmland on greenfield sites, but within the urban area itself. Contact with nature has been found to be vitally important for human well-being, and


115

government agencies in England and Wales have adopted standards aimed at facilitating contact between townspeople and accessible natural green space (Pauleit et al., 2003).

5.3

Environmental assessment In its early days back in 1909, when the first town planning powers were enacted (Cherry, 1974), planning was very much concerned with public health and followed on logically from the sanitary reforms (concerning sewerage, water supply and waste disposal) that had made possible the rapid growth of towns and cities during the nineteenth century. This ‘environmental’ preoccupation of planning was less conspicuous in the 1947 Town and Country Planning Act, and this increasing divergence between town planning and environmental regulation contributed to confusion and even controversy when they did interact (Miller, 2001). The two UK Government departments with responsibilities in this area (CLG and Defra) have consulted on ways to improve the interface between planning and pollution control, especially in the delivery of waste infrastructure and the redevelopment of brownfield land. Not surprisingly, the way forward was deemed to be closer working between planning authorities and developers, particularly at the pre-application stage, with planners addressing ‘if ’-type questions (should development proceed?) and pollution control regulators considering ‘how to’ questions (which seek to ensure that a process or operation is compatible with safeguarding human health and the wider environment) (CLG and Defra, 2008). Development can have significant environmental impacts, and one approach to identifying and managing these is environmental impact assessment (EIA). This is reflected in recent legislation, e.g. the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999, and the equivalent in Scotland. This was driven by European Union directives in 1985, 1997 and 2003 requiring a formal framework for environmental impact assessment (EIA) and for ensuring public participation. The way in which the EIA process is undertaken in the UK is illustrated in Figure 5.2. Decisions about whether or not a formal EIA is required are known as ‘screening’, and determination of the issues which the EIA should cover is called ‘scoping’. Categories of development for which an EIA is mandatory, or may be required, are specified at Annex I and II respectively in the 1999 EIA Regulations. Certain categories of urban development covered by this book would certainly be captured by Annex II of the Regulations. For a full discussion of ‘screening’ see Glasson et al. (2005). The structured approach to decision making that EIA offers has much to commend it, even when not mandatory. Hughes and Wood (1996) have shown that ‘informal’ EIA can both improve the effectiveness of project management and speed up the planning process. There may even be scope within land development to move beyond avoidance of harm to utilise EIA in a more creative way to improve project outcomes. Jay and Handley (2001) put this idea to the test in the

116

Land

Alternatives/design

Project initiated

Screening Schedule 2 project Other proposal

Schedule 1 project Application of indicative criteria, thresholds

EIA not required EIA required Scoping Proponent may request a scoping opinion EIA report preparation Proponent prepares ES Review Public review

Proponent submits further information Decision making LPA evaluates ES and comments received

LPA makes decision Monitoring Monitoring optional step ES: environmental statement LPA: local planning authority Figure 5.2 The main steps in the EIA process for UK planning decisions (after Wood, 2001)


117

context of land reclamation practice. They identified two roles for EIA in this context:

• •

the ‘conventional’ role of EIA as a tool for environmental management, including the identification and mitigation of potentially adverse effects; and the more ‘creative’ role of EIA as a means of identifying and maximizing potentially beneficial effects. (Jay and Handley, 2001)

The environmental components that make up the scope of EIA are specified in the EU Directive and in Schedule 4 of the UK regulations. In Methods of Environmental Impact Assessment the authors provide a useful table which suggests the topics to be covered within each component (Therivel and Morris, 2009, p. 14) – see Table 5.1.

Table 5.1 Environmental components listed in Annex IV of Directive 97/11/EC and Schedule 4 of the UK regulations (after Therivel and Morris, 2009) Environmental component

Key topics for assessment

Population

• • • • • • • • • • • • •

Landscape Material assets and the cultural heritage

Air and climatic factors Soil Water Fauna and flora

Economic impacts Social impacts Noise Transport Landscape Economic impacts Social impacts Heritage Air quality and climate Soils, geology and geomorphology Water Ecology Coastal ecology and geomorphology

Methods of Environmental Impact Assessment provides detailed guidance on the methodologies to be employed under each topic, but in this chapter we focus on the topics shown in bold in Table 5.1. Other topics such as economic and social impacts, heritage and soil are dealt with elsewhere in the book.

5.4

The importance of landscape One topic that forms a cross-cutting theme throughout this book is ‘landscape’, both as the setting for development and as an emergent property of the development process itself. Landscape expresses the complex relationship between humankind and the natural world – as Meinig says, ‘Environment sustains us as creatures; landscape displays us as cultures’ (Meinig, 1979, p. 3). This notion is

118

Land

well captured by the formal definition of ‘landscape’ within the European Landscape Convention as ‘an area, as perceived by people, whose character is the result of the action and interaction of natural and/or human factors’ (Council of Europe, 2000). The UK Government ratified the European Landscape Convention in 2006 and it became binding on 1 March 2007. People are quick to perceive, or to anticipate, landscape change as a consequence of development and it is not surprising that ‘landscape’, along with ‘ecology’, has proved to be one of the two most contested topic areas within the EIA process (Jones et al., 1998; Wood et al., 2000). The emergence of landscape characterisation (CA/SNH, 2002), together with new visualisation techniques such as view-shed analysis, has helped to bring a degree of objectivity to the landscape assessment process (LI/IEMA, 2002; Knight, 2009), but this is less well developed in the urban environment. Here it is vital to recognise that urbanisation and industrialisation, as well as producing the horrors described by Hoskins, have created distinctive landscapes, sometimes of great cultural and historic significance. We should celebrate them when we can (e.g. the Emscher Park in the heart of Germany’s Ruhrgebiet – Dettmar and Ganser, 1999) and seek to retain and draw out the inherent character and potential within them through a multifunctional approach (Cass, 2003; Ling et al., 2007), avoiding at all costs a bland and characterless outcome. Designing places for people is a complex process (Beer and Higgins, 2000) and the best outcomes are often achieved through meaningful community engagement.

5.5

Soils and substrates: the platform for development The key building block of any terrestrial landscape is the soil from which it is formed. In a world of rapid population growth, increasing affluence making for protein-rich and therefore land-hungry diets, and the all-pervading influence of climate change, governments are once again speaking of ‘food security’ and recognising the importance of soil as a self-sustaining but finite resource. The UK Government’s Sustainable Development Strategy (Defra, 2005) refers to the need to retain soil functions, and one of the principal justifications for steering development away from greenfield sites and onto ‘previously developed land’ is to protect the soils that underpin productive farmland, especially the best and most versatile land (Grades 1–3a inclusive in the MAFF’s Agricultural Land Classification Scheme) (ODPM, 2004a, p. 15). The Soil Strategy for England (Defra, 2009b) places welcome emphasis on the importance of soils in the urban environment and the need for soil protection during construction and development: Good-quality soils in urban areas are vital in supporting ecosystems, facilitating drainage and providing urban green space for communities. Ensuring these functions are sufficiently understood and valued in the planning system and during construction is an essential part of achieving our vision. (Defra, 2009b, p. 31)


119

Until recently, knowledge of urban soils has been mainly concentrated in a handful of landmark texts (e.g. Bullock and Gregory, 1991; Craul, 1999) but, following a review of soil-based services in the built environment (Wood et al., 2005), Defra has commissioned research that greatly strengthens the evidence base on soil functions and the pressures to which urban soils are subjected. The main categories of urban soil are illustrated by the typology in Figure 5.3.

Intact profile

Semi-natural vegetation, gardens, allotments, agriculture, horticulture, parks, sports fields, cemeteries, woodland, water margins, etc

Pavements, piazzas, vehicle parking areas, pathways, patios, etc

Unsealed

Sealed

Building footprints (residential, commercial, industrial, sports stadiums, etc) highway surfaces etc

Highway verges; railway tracks, cuttings and embankments; etc

Degraded profile Figure 5.3 Soils and substrates

Soil sealing and degradation of the soil profile (by truncation, burial, admixture and compaction) greatly reduce the effectiveness of important soil functions such as carbon sequestration, water storage and flow attenuation, pollutant attenuation and aquifer recharge. These functions are increasingly important in a changing climate (Bradley et al., 2005) and underpin the effectiveness of the so-called ‘green infrastructure’ in moderating climate change impacts (Gill et al., 2007). ‘Previously developed land’ as defined in PPS 3 includes not only brownfield sites – the unsealed/degraded quadrant of Figure 5.3 – but also gardens, where the functionality is substantially intact: the unsealed/intact quadrant of Figure 5.3. Garden soils therefore represent a key resource that underpins urban biodiversity and has

120

Land

the capacity to moderate climate-change impacts. As this becomes better understood, it is likely that garden soils will enjoy a greater degree of protection from development, and already government has made changes to the General Development Order to ensure that surfacing of front gardens does not accelerate run-off of rainwater through surface sealing (CLG, 2008g). On development sites it needs to be recognised that the presence of intact and undamaged soil is a valuable resource and it is advisable to make note of this during the first walk-over of the site; see Chapter 4. Soil is an expensive commodity and its importation has a number of inherent risks:

• • • • •

importing soils unsuitable for planned use damage to soil structure mixing of topsoil and subsoil loss of soil function in the area exporting the soil potential import of contaminants, pests and diseases.

Furthermore, the soils in situ are often the first casualty of the development process, owing to compaction by machinery, exposure leading to erosion, damage through mishandling and admixture with building materials. The over-compaction of soils during the construction process is an issue of particular concern as the requirement for sustainable urban drainage increases and higher development densities create new landscape challenges (WSP Environmental, 2006). A useful code of practice for the sustainable use of soils on construction sites has recently been published by Defra (2009a). As already made clear, many brownfield sites do not possess unmodified native soil. Rather, they are dominated by heavily modified substrates and hard standings with the potential for chemical contamination (see e.g. Young et al., 1997). However, even here there may be considerable potential for soil development in situ without the need to import soil (Bradshaw and Chadwick, 1980) and the physico-chemical variability that characterises post-industrial land can be seen as a positive asset, a framework for promoting biodiversity (Handley et al., 1998). One further question of great importance to the developer is the inherent stability of the site to support development. Planning Policy Guidance note 14 – Development of Unstable Land (PPG 14) (DoE/Welsh Office, 1990) – provides clear guidance on this. The PPG identifies three basic causes of instability:

• • •

the effects of underground cavities, which may be natural in origin or due to mining or civil engineering works; unstable slopes, which may be natural in both coastal and inland locations or man-made, whether excavated as in quarries or cuttings, or constructed as in tips and embankments; ground compression, which may be natural in origin or due to human activities, e.g. made ground, landfill and restored opencast workings, and ground subject to movement due to shrinking and swelling of clays.

The responsibility for determining whether land is suitable for a particular purpose rests with the developer. PPG 14 sets out the responsibilities and liabilities in this area (DoE/ Welsh Office, 1990, paragraphs 16–20), as well as the need


121

for site investigation and geotechnical appraisal where instability is suspected. Further detailed guidance is provided in two subsequent Annexes, of which Annex 2 dealing with risk of subsidence is of particular relevance here (DETR, 1998). As may be noted from Chapter 2, there are no current plans to update PPG 14, in part perhaps because the guidance is still authoritative and by its technical nature it is difficult to distil this into the more ‘populist’ PPS format. In the absence of an explicit statement about ground stability in PPS1, which could serve as a pointer to PPG 14, there is real concern that this important guidance may become neglected (Brook and Marker, 2008). This is despite the fact that subsidence damage in England was estimated at between £300 and £500 million in 2002 alone. Furthermore climate change, with increased rainfall intensity, is likely to increase the risk of both subsidence and landslip. Brook and Marker (2008) suggest that sustainability appraisal of spatial plans and EIA on development proposals could both help to ensure that this important issue for land and development is not overlooked.

5.6

Biodiversity of previously developed land Ecosystems in urban areas vary greatly from those in rural locations; habitats tend to be highly fragmented, with a reduced patch size and subject to much increased anthropogenic pressures such as pollution and disturbance. The majority of urban habitats are heavily managed in order to maintain arrested successional development and prevent change toward a climax community, usually of woodland. This heavy management is also necessary to maintain public expectations of urban green space, where a more natural appearance is associated with neglect. Previously developed land as part of the urban landscape offers a different type of opportunity for conservation than traditionally recognised wildlife sites, as they are often temporary in nature and unmanaged. The combination of abiotic and biotic factors on brownfield sites provides a unique opportunity for wildlife and biodiversity. This has long been recognised by ecologists and recently the habitat type ‘Open Mosaic Habitats on Previously Developed Land’ was added to the UK biodiversity action plan (UK Biodiversity Action Plan, n.d.). Urban brownfield sites are an important resource for wildlife and can contain considerable floral biodiversity; for example, researchers in Birmingham surveyed 50 sites that contained a total of 378 species (Angold et al., 2006). Similarly, research shows that brownfield sites are important for the conservation of several invertebrate groups including coleoptera (Eyre et al., 2003), and Buglife – The Invertebrate Conservation Trust reports that brownfield sites have as many associated Red Data and Nationally Scarce invertebrate species as ancient woodlands (Buglife – The Invertebrate Conservation Trust, 2009). In the UK, some derelict sites are afforded protection as SSSIs or nature reserves because of their biodiversity value. Britain’s first brownfield SSSI was designated in 1995; Canvey Wick is situated in the East Thames Valley Corridor and is designated for its nationally important assemblage of invertebrates (Natural England, 2005).

122

Land

The black redstart, Phoenicurus ochruros, is a small member of the thrush family, listed on schedule 1 of The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981; it is also listed as a Red Data Book species and is on Appendix II of the Berne Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats 1979. The black redstart is strongly associated with brownfield sites, and large-scale redevelopment in London and the Midlands has resulted in habitat loss (Greater Manchester Biodiversity Project, 2009). Planning Policy Guidance Note 9 – Biodiversity and Geological Conservation (PPG9) – recognises the value of previously developed land and states that: The reuse of previously developed land for new development makes a major contribution to sustainable development by reducing the amount of countryside and undeveloped land that needs to be used. However, where such sites have significant biodiversity or geological interest of recognised local importance, local planning authorities, together with developers, should aim to retain this interest or incorporate it into any development of the site. (ODPM, 2005b) Sites with ‘significant biodiversity interest’ can become complicated for developers in terms of obtaining permissions and adding cost to the project. Because of this there is a danger that developers and landowners would be prepared to spend time and money keeping sites maintained in order to avoid the development of biodiverse habitats that may attract designations and hinder future development plans (Gibson, 1998). Studies have suggested that in order for planners to benefit urban wildlife, the pace of redevelopment should be slowed and the urge to ‘tidy up’ brownfield sites quelled (Angold et al., 2006). This is in direct conflict with the notion of ‘removing blight’ as described in the National Brownfield Strategy (English Partnerships, 2007). Brownfields are an important resource for biodiversity, but they are equally important for the sustainable development of our cities. Therefore it is contradictory to suggest that brownfields should be managed purely for wildlife and that development should be slowed or halted. Studies have demonstrated that the highest floral biodiversity was noted on sites in early successional stages, supporting the theory that disturbance on brownfield sites is important in maintaining biodiversity value (Angold et al., 2006). Furthermore, the reuse of brownfield sites has been shown to support urban biodiversity in the creation of a mosaic of habitats at different successional stages on the landscape scale (Kattwinkel et al., 2009) and suggests that the disturbance and redevelopment of brownfield sites can enhance biodiversity. Similarly, brownfield sites can increase connectivity within the landscape and allow some species to persist longer in an area even following redevelopment (Roy et al., 2004). Well-planned and sympathetic developments can also enhance the biodiversity of brownfield sites, particularly by incorporating green infrastructure. Green infrastructure is defined as ‘… an interconnected network of greenspace that conserves natural ecosystem values and functions and provides associated benefits to human populations’ (Benedict and McMahon, 2002, p. 12). Green infrastructure contributes significantly to vegetation cover within urban areas, therefore increasing the biodiversity value of cities (Tzoulas et al., 2007).


123

When considering the biodiversity of our cities, gardens offer an undervalued resource for wildlife in urban areas. Davies et al. (2009) estimated that there are 22.7 million households with access to a garden in Britain. This represents approximately 400,000 ha of garden, containing an estimated 2.5–3.5 million ponds, presenting a significant resource for biodiversity in urban areas (Davies et al., 2009). Current policy to increase the density of new housing developments (ODPM, 2002) will reduce the net amount of garden within urban areas; this, coupled with in-fill development or ‘garden grabbing’, represents a threat to the resource. Research has shown that ecosystem quality decreases as development density increases (Tratalos et al., 2007). Therefore it will become more important for developers and planning authorities to maximise the potential for biodiversity in these decreasing spaces (Smith et al., 2005) and to conserve ecosystem services, as discussed further in section 5.10.

5.7

Policy and legislative framework for biodiversity conservation PPS 9, which covers Biodiversity and Geological Conservation, and its accompanying circular are the main documents that planners and developers should consult in the very early stages of the development process. The Statement provides guidance on national planning policies and how they relate to the protection of biodiversity, while the accompanying circular provides guidance on the application of the law relating to nature conservation and planning in England. PPS9 outlines the requirement of planning authorities to gather and maintain information regarding biodiversity and geological diversity resources in order to make planning decisions based on up-to-date information; see Box 5.1.

Box 5.1 The importance and use of data collected under the requirements of PPS9 (ODPM, 2006a) Information on biodiversity and geological resources is required to: •

•

•

• •

provide the evidence base needed to prepare regional spatial strategies (RSS) and local development frameworks (LDFs), to carry out Sustainability Appraisals and to ensure the test of soundness is met at Examinations; deliver a spatial planning approach which applies information from all policies and programmes influencing the nature of places and how they can function, including regional and local Biodiversity and Geodiversity Action Plans; set targets and indicators to measure the implementation of RSS and LDF policies and other regional and local government objectives, such as those of Regional Sustainable Development Frameworks and sustainable community strategies; contribute to the provision of information needed for the Annual Monitoring Reports required for RSS and LDDs; appraise environmental impacts of all development proposals, including where necessary to satisfy the requirements of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations (EIA Regulations) and the Habitats Regulations.

124

Land

The document provides guidance on the consideration of designated sites in relation to planning applications and outlines the requirement for up-to-date information regarding location, condition and designations of important sites, from a European to a local level (see Table 5.2). Table 5.2 Hierarchy of nature conservation designations (ODPM, 2006a) International

National Local

• • • • • •

Special Protection Areas (SPA) Special Areas for Conservation (SAC) Ramsar sites Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) National Nature Reserves (NNRs) Local Sites*, including: • Sites for Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs) Local Nature Reserves (LNRs) • Sites of Biological Important (SBI) • County Wildlife Sites • Regionally Important Geological and Geomorphological Sites (RIGS)

* Note: The terminology relating to local sites varies widely; this is not an exhaustive list.

As discussed in the first part of this section, the biodiversity of previously developed land is considered within PPS9 and recognises that brownfield sites can contain high levels of biodiversity. Where that is the case, biodiversity interest should be retained within the development plan. PPS9 also states that, where possible, the creation or restoration of priority habitats should be incorporated into plans for new development. For this reason, opportunities for the creation of new habitats should be mapped and incorporated into the Regional Spatial Strategies and the Local Development Frameworks. Similar guidance is provided in NPPG14 Natural Heritage (Scotland) (1998), Technical Advice Note (Wales) 5, Nature Conservation and Planning (2009) and PPS2 Planning and Nature Conservation (Northern Ireland) (Department of the Environment (NI), 1997). Biodiversity policy is expressed at the local level through the Local Development Framework. PPS 9 states that, ‘Local Development Frameworks should:

• •

indicate the location of designated sites of importance for biodiversity and geodiversity, making a clear distinction between the hierarchy of international, national, regional, and locally designated sites’; and ‘identify any areas or sites for the restoration or creation of new priority habitats that contribute to regional targets, and support this restoration or creation through appropriate policies.’

The Good Practice Guide accompanying PPS9 suggests the development of Supplementary Planning Guidance to aid developers in the submission of good applications with the necessary information to enable effective decision making. One such suggestion is the production of biodiversity survey checklists to ensure


125

applicants submit the necessary information to aid decision making. The Association of Local Government Ecologists has produced an excellent guide on how to integrate biodiversity into LDFs, which is available for download from their website. The UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UKBAP) is the UK response to the Convention of Biological Diversity, which was agreed during the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio. The plan consists of a series of action plans aimed at reducing the loss of biodiversity in the UK. There are currently plans for 1150 species and 65 habitats (UKBAP, 2010), which are available to view on the UK BAP website: www.ukbap.org.uk. In order to meet the requirements of PPS9, planning authorities need to conserve, enhance and extend these priority habitats (and the habitats of the priority species). Local Biodiversity Action Plans (LBAPs) identify priorities at a local scale; the local biodiversity partnership responsible for delivering the targets outlined in the plan will identify all the UK priority species and habitats present within its boundaries, and has the authority to include and plan for other species and habitats not accounted for within the national plan. These priority species and habitats should be included within the LDF (ODPM, 2006a). There is a growing body of legislation that underpins biodiversity planning at both European and national levels. Examples of legislation that developers and planning officers should have regard to, from an early stage in the development process, include:

• • • • • • 5.8

Conservation (Natural Habitats etc.) Regulations 1994 (Habitat Regulations as amended); Council Directive 79/409/EFC on the conservation of wild birds (Birds Directive); Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended); Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006; Hedgerow Regulations, 1997; Badger Act, 1992.

Ecological surveys and the formation of new habitats In 2006 The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) produced the document Planning for Biodiversity and Geological Conservation: A Guide to Good Practice to guide regional planning bodies and local planning authorities in delivering the national policies in PPS9. The guide states that Where the nature and location of a development is such that nature conservation impacts may be significant and existing information regarding this is lacking or inadequate, further ecological surveys may be necessary in advance of a planning application. (ODPM, 2006a, p. 1) During the development process planning officers, in agreement with a local authority ecologist, will determine which ecological surveys need to be completed.

126

Land

This requirement will usually result in the developer engaging an ecological consultancy to complete these surveys and provide guidance on the potential impact of the proposed development and any subsequent mitigation requirements. Good-practice guidance from the Royal Town Planning Institute (1999) suggests that planners adopt a five-point plan when considering applications, this is summarised in Figure 5.4. In addition to this five-point plan, the Circular published to accompany PPS9 outlines the statutory obligations of the planning authority in its implementation (ODPM, 2006a).

Information

•Is further information about biodiversity required •Is more information needed about the potential effects of the development required? •Has the significance of the these effects been explored fully? •Is additional expertise required to help inform the decision?

Avoidance

•Have all potential adverse effects to habitats and species been avoided wherever possible?

Mitigation

•Can unavoidable adverse effects be minimised by planning for mitigation? •Can the measures be guaranteed via planning conditions?

Compensation

•Can any unavoidable adverse effects be compensated for by measures that attempt to offset the harm? •Can these compensation measures be guaranteed via conditions?

New Benefits

•Are there opportunities to provide new benefits to wildlife? e.g. by the creation of new habitat, or enhancing existing habitats? •Can this be guaranteed by planning conditions?

Figure 5.4 RTPI five-point approach to planning decisions (based on RTPI, 1999)


127

Information gathering is the first and critical step in Figure 5.4 and is likely to include, inter alia:

• • • •

desk study, e.g. consulting relevant databases such as the Multi Agency Geographical System for the Countryside (MAGIC) and the National Biodiversity Network Gateway (NBN Gateway); consulting Local Record Centres and wildlife groups; Initial habitat mapping through an Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey (JNCC, 2007) specialist surveys where it has been established that the site has potential for protected species to be present.

The Good Practice Guide suggests that developers and their agents consult planning authorities and Natural England to agree what surveys are required prior to submitting a planning application (ODPM, 2006a). If initial investigations highlight the potential for protected species, the planning authority will insist on additional surveys to establish the presence or absence of the species. This ensures the statutory protection, detailed in the Circular, is applied (ODPM, 2006a). If protected species are found to be affected by the development, licences may be required for further survey and any resulting disturbance. In addition to those species with statutory protection, PPS9 states that species identified as being important for the conservation of biodiversity should also be protected during the development process (ODPM, 2005b); therefore, species listed under section 41 of the NERC Act should be given due consideration. In order to establish the presence or absence of a protected or priority species with a high degree of confidence, the appropriate survey needs to be completed, if possible, at the optimal time of the year (ALGE, 2007). The optimal timings for species surveys are shown in Table 5.3. Surveys completed outside these time frames will be considered unreliable by planning authorities and their consultees and can result in considerable delays to the development process. One of the most important features of Figure 5.4 is the potential to compensate for ecological damage through development or, more positively, to add value by designing the new development with biodiversity in mind (URBED, 2004). A good indication of the range of methods available for mitigation and compensation is provided by Gilbert and Anderson (1998), but these authors do stress that, while creative conservation can compensate for habitat loss, the newly created habitats are no substitute for the subtlety, complexity and biodiversity of an ecosystem that has evolved over time. To comply with PPS9, targets should be set for the restoration and re-creation of priority habitats and the recovery of priority species populations (ODPM, 2005b); these should be linked to national goals. Therefore, wherever possible, planning authorities will seek the opportunity to include the creation of new habitats as part of development plans; that is in addition to any mitigation that may be required for the conservation of protected species. Planning authorities will provide for this via planning conditions and agreements, such as section 106.

128

Common Name Badger Bats (Hibernation roosts) Bats (Summer roosts) Bats (Foraging/commuting) Birds (Breeding) Birds (Overwintering) Dormice Great Crested Newts – terrestrial Great Crested Newts – aquatic Invertebrates Natterjack Toads Otters Reptiles Water Voles White-clawed Crayfish Habitats/Vegetation

Jan

Feb

March

April

May

June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Land

Table 5.3 Optimal survey times for species surveys (ALGE, 2007). Dark shaded months are optimal; surveys may be extended into lighter shaded areas, but should not be carried out in unshaded months Dec


5.9

129

Land and development in a changing climate When developers think of a ‘changing climate’ what they normally have in mind are the vicissitudes of the market. However, there is strong evidence that the climate of the UK is itself changing, that historic emissions of greenhouse gases have contributed to these changes and that during the twenty-first century climate change is set to intensify (Hulme et al., 2002; Jenkins et al., 2009). Climate scenarios for the United Kingdom (Hulme et al., 2002) suggest that higher temperatures, combined with changing patterns of precipitation, will lead to hotter and possibly drier summers and milder, wetter winters. Rising sea levels and changes in surge height are expected, as is an increase in extreme weather. This picture is very much in line with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) which concludes that, for Europe as a whole, key areas of climate sensitivity are:

• • •

extreme seasons, in particular exceptionally hot and dry summers and mild winters; short-duration events such as windstorms and heavy rains; and slow, long-term changes in climate that, among other impacts, will put particular pressure on coastal areas, e.g. through sea-level rise.

The IPCC Fourth Assessment (IPCC, 2007) emphasised that for the first time wide-ranging impacts of changes in Europe’s current climate have been documented – most notably the European heatwave of 2003 (Stott et al., 2004) – which are consistent with increased risk due to anthropogenic warming. Recent trends in the UK climate have been reviewed by Jenkins et al. (2007), and while it is likely that human activity has contributed to the recent warming of the Central England Temperature record, the increase in storminess observed from the 1960s to the 1990s has been seen before (e.g. in the 1920s) and seems to be linked with a positive phase of the North Atlantic Oscillation. Similar observations have been made with regard to flood events in recent decades (Hannaford and Marsh, 2007). Nevertheless, an increasing frequency of extreme weather-related events has been noted by the Association of British Insurers and the risk rate of weather-related catastrophes is increasing at an unprecedented 2–4 per cent per annum (Dlugolecki, 2004). Preliminary estimates of future costs of weather-related insurance claims (subsidence, storm and inland flood) suggest a two- or threefold increase in real terms over the period to 2050. Regional studies of climate change impacts (including potential benefits and opportunities) have been carried out throughout the United Kingdom as part of the UK Climate Impacts Programme (West and Gawith, 2005). The overall picture for the UK is summarised in Box 5.2. The impact of climate change in towns and cities is especially significant given the concentration of people and property in urban areas, together with the way in which urbanisation itself influences the local climate. The large building mass of urban areas means that its associated heat-storage capacity, reduced greenspace cover (and therefore evaporative cooling), complex geometry and

130

Land

Box 5.2 Key threats and opportunities identified by regional scoping studies of climate-change impacts in the UK (source: West and Gawith, 2005) The most widely recognised problems include: • an increase in the risk of riverine and coastal flooding and erosion; • increased pressure on drainage systems; • a potential increase in winter storm damage; • habitat loss; • summer water shortages, low stream flows and water-quality problems; • increased risk of subsidence in subsidence-prone areas; and • increasing thermal discomfort in buildings and health problems in summer. Common benefits include: • a longer growing season and enhanced crop yields; • less cold weather and transport disruption; • reduced demand for winter heating; and • fewer cold-related illnesses and deaths. Opportunities include: • agricultural diversification and the potential to grow new crops; • an increase in tourism and leisure pursuits; and • a shift to more outdoor-oriented lifestyles.

anthropogenic emissions all contribute to an ‘urban heat island’ (UHI) effect (Smith and Levermore, 2008). This can result in temperature differences of up to 7°C between centres of large conurbations in the UK and their surrounding rural areas (Wilby, 2003), but even small urban centres demonstrate a heat-island effect (Oke, 1987). A second feature of urban areas is the extent of impervious surfaces (around 70 per cent in high-density residential areas and city centres); they promote rapid run-off of precipitation (Bridgman et al., 1996). These distinctive characteristics are amplified by climate change, which is expected to intensify the urban heat island (Wilby, 2003) and accelerate surface run-off (Wilby, 2007). For example, Gill et al. (2007) modelled the likely impact of climate change in Greater Manchester and showed a marked increase of surface temperature in town centres and high-density residential areas on increasingly frequent hot summer days, while urban run-off from an intense rainfall event (56 per cent more rain under the 2080s ‘High’ scenario,) was increased by 82 per cent. Rainfall-induced ‘pluvial flooding’ that exceeds the capacity of urban drainage systems is expected to increase with climate change (Evans et al., 2003) and has already featured in some of the major flooding episodes of the twenty-first century (Pitt, 2008). Conversely, reduced rainfall and increased evapo-transpiration in summer will interact to reduce soil and groundwater levels and flow rates to rivers (Wilby, 2007).


5.10

131

The response to climate change The response to climate change is twofold: measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions – ‘mitigation’ – and measures to address climate-change impacts – ‘adaptation’. More formal definitions are provided by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, where ‘mitigation’ is defined as ‘anthropogenic (human) intervention to reduce the sources or increase the sinks of greenhouse gases’ and ‘adaptation’ as ‘adjustment in natural or human systems in response to actual or expected climatic stimuli or their effects, which moderates harm or exploits beneficial opportunities’ (IPCC, 2007, p. 869). The two processes are interrelated, as shown in Figure 5.5, where the solid arrows show the cycle of cause and effect between the quadrants and the blank arrow indicates societal responses to the impacts of climate change.

Impacts on human and natural systems

Climate Change •Temperature rise •Sea level rise •Precipitation change •Droughts and floods

Adaptation

Adaptation

Change

Emissions and concentrations

•Food and water resources •Ecosystems and biodiversity •Human settlements

Socio-economic development paths

Mitigation

•Greenhouse gases •Aerosols

•Economic growth •Technology •Population •Governance

Figure 5.5 Climate change: an integrated framework

The policy response to climate change has often been focused on either mitigation or adaptation, but there is growing recognition of the need for an integrated approach (Swart and Raes, 2007). Howard (2009) argues powerfully that the integration of mitigation and adaptation should not be a ‘plodding technocratic exercise’, but a fundamental shift in attitude towards a serious commitment to sustainable development, in which ‘planners will harness emerging public

132

Land

awareness of the local threat posed by global climate change to press for serious adaptation and, at the same time, far deeper public commitment to mitigation’ (Howard, 2009, p. 30). The connection between sustainable development and the climate-change response is reinforced by the decision to publish national planning guidance on climate change as an Annex to PPS 1 (CLG, 2007f ), although it is now proposed to review this guidance and consolidate it with PPS 22 on renewable energy. This is a fast-developing scene and may appear somewhat daunting to the newcomer. However, excellent practical guidance has been provided by the Town and Country Planning Association (Shaw et al., 2006, 2007), and new and approachable texts such as Planning for Climate Change (Davoudi et al., 2009) are beginning to consolidate the emergent knowledge. Climate-change impacts do not respect administrative boundaries and adaptation planning needs to operate across a range of interlocking scales (Shaw et al., 2007): Conurbation or catchment scale Climate-change adaptation at this scale will potentially serve the whole city, catchment or region and is likely to include a variety of land uses. Opportunities for creating cost-effective and integrated solutions as part of an overarching climate change strategy may be greatest at this scale. Neighbourhood scale This scale involves developments of discrete groupings of dwellings, including a mix of uses, and can vary from an individual block to a large estate. Consideration will need to be given to adapting the public realm and spaces between buildings and developments. Building scale Smaller developments, including individual dwellings, apartment blocks or commercial buildings, provide opportunities for integrating climate-change adaptation into and around buildings (Shaw et al., 2007). A useful adaptation checklist for developers at the building scale has been prepared by the Three Regions Climate Change Group (2005). Adaptation planning involves risk assessment and the development of policies, plans and programmes to reduce the risk of exposure to climate-related hazard for people, buildings and the wider environment (Figure 5.6). An example of one such hazard is flooding, whether riverine, coastal or surface water (pluvial) flooding from high-intensity rainfall events. It will be readily appreciated that risk of exposure to flooding can be increased by change within the urban system, e.g. inappropriate siting of development, regardless of climaterelated change in the likelihood or intensity of a hazard event. However, should the flood ‘get to the door’, the amount of damage that then ensues depends on the vulnerability of the receptor, whether that be a household, a commercial building or a piece of critical infrastructure. Vulnerability therefore, as shown


133

Building Adaptive Technology Review existing plans and policies

Control development in high risk areas

Climate conscious urban regeneration

Climate conscious new development

Screening risks at the conurbation scale Mitigate climate change drivers

Modify urban form and function

Influence general behaviour

HAZARD

URBAN SYSTEM

ELEMENTS AT RISK

Reduce exposure

EXPOSURE

Reduce risk

RISK

VULNERABILITY

Reduce vulnerability

Indirect relationship Direct relationship

Figure 5.6 Land-use planning and adaptive capacity

in Figure 5.6, is also a component of risk, and a complementary approach to hazard reduction is to lower vulnerability by improving resilience. Both these approaches come together in the ‘sequential approach’ to flood risk management within PPS 25, matching as it does the vulnerability of appropriate end uses (receptors) to the likelihood of exposure to flooding (Coleman, 2009). The continuum that links adaptation measures to reduce exposure, through to reducing vulnerability through resilient design, is illustrated by the flood risk management hierarchy within the Practice Guide to PPS 25 – Development and Flood Risk (CLG, 2008f ):

• • • • •

Assess: appropriate flood risk management; Avoid: apply the sequential approach; Substitute: apply the sequential approach at site level; Control: e.g. sustainable drainage systems, flood defences; Mitigate: e.g. flood-resilient and -resistant construction.

134

Land

The choice of flood risk management to illustrate the process of adaptation planning is appropriate, because some of the most profound consequences of climate change for society will be mediated through the water cycle and expressed as flooding in times of excess rainfall, and drought in times of shortage. A sequence of severe flooding episodes over the past decade, indicative perhaps of what may be to come, has driven forward UK legislation and planning guidance. A second important influence is European legislation, especially the EU Water Framework Directive (Directive 2000/60/EC) and most recently the Floods Directive (Directive 2007/60/EC), which is currently being transposed into UK law. The Water Bill, currently before Parliament is, in part, a response to the Pitt Review (Pitt, 2008), which reported on lessons to be learned from the severe flooding of central England in the summer of 2007. For practitioners there are useful summaries of the current legislative and policy frameworks, and their implications for development, in Kelday et al. (2009) and Coleman (2009). In their report on the Urban Environment (RCEP, 2007), the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution stressed the importance of the natural environment as a complement to the built environment in providing a range of ecosystem services, including regulatory services that have the potential to moderate climate-change impacts. This recognition of the importance of urban green space to the liveability of cities has a long pedigree (e.g. Spirn, 1984 and Hough, 2004), but this whole approach has gained a new momentum with the recognition that the network of green spaces, including gardens and street trees, constitutes a veritable ‘green infrastructure’ (Benedict and McMahon, 2006; Kambites and Owen, 2006). With the aid of biophysical modelling, some of these benefits can be quantified (Whitford et al., 2001) and their application, in combination with climate-change scenarios, has shown that green infrastructure can make an important contribution to adaptation by helping to moderate a range of climatechange impacts (Gill et al., 2007). One of the benefits of this approach is that under some circumstances it supports both climate-change adaptation and mitigation – for example by providing external shade to buildings in summer – and so reduces cooling demand; or through rainfall interception it reduces the loading and therefore energy demand at the waste water treatment works (Handley and Gill, 2009). Strategic planning can also be helpful in reducing greenhouse-gas emissions, for example by promoting new patterns of more localised and renewable energy generation, but it is at the building scale that energy conservation is most effective. The UK Government’s policy statement, Building a Greener Future (CLG, 2007), signalled a new concern for promoting sustainable construction and design (Rydin, 2009). A key vehicle for this is the Code for Sustainable Homes (CLG, 2009f ), which scores new housing development against nine different parameters and BREEAM (2008), its sister Code for non-domestic buildings: refer to chapter 14 (see www.breeam.org). The emergent policy frameworks at both national and local levels mark a new direction in ‘climate-conscious planning’, but the extent to which they are really achieving change in practice has been called into question (Rydin, 2009). In her analysis, Yvonne Rydin identifies a confused and confusing institutional framework, structural problems within the planning system itself and real problems of


135

competence and capacity within the planning profession. This is a new and very challenging professional agenda and Rydin argues convincingly ‘that the boundaries of planning expertise and competence are being stretched’ – there is an emergent knowledge gap, but this cannot be solved easily by on-the-job training without ‘putting unrealistic pressures on the capacity of a planner to absorb knowledge on sustainable construction and design, given their practical (highly pressured) working context’ (Rydin, 2009, p. 187, p. 188, respectively). Part of the solution will require reform of planning education (and there are signs that already this is in hand, e.g. the MPlan specialism in ‘Planning for Environmental Change’ at the University of Manchester), but, for planners in practice, Rydin advocates engagement within ‘learning networks’, providing ‘access to a range of expertise on a need-to-know basis, rather than on the basis of individual knowledge acquisition’ (Rydin, 2009, p. 188; Rydin et al., 2007).

5.11

Summary There is a strong presumption in favour of development on previously developed land. However, as this chapter has shown, nature is quick to colonise postindustrial land and the developer needs to be aware that a nature conservation interest may have become established that is a significant constraint to development. When possible, development should work with the grain of nature and seek to make the most of emergent natural assets of this kind. The same is true of the soils and substrates that provide the platform for development. Soils that are relatively unmodified are a precious resource for the developer and, where ‘natural soils’ are present on the development site, they need to be conserved and handled with care. Indeed, ‘previously developed land’ includes not only post-industrial brownfield sites, but urban green space such as gardens. It is now being recognised that urban green space constitutes a ‘green infrastructure’ that may be critically important for biodiversity, for human well-being and in providing regulatory services that help to moderate climate-change impacts. Urban areas are distinctive in terms of energy exchange and hydrology and climate change will reinforce this distinctiveness, strengthening the urban heat island and accelerating surface run-off. The developer needs to be aware that some locations are potentially hazardous, especially with regard to flooding and subsidence, and planners should seek to steer development away from locations that increase potential exposure to environmental hazards. At the same time, there is considerable potential to ‘climate proof ’ development by following codes of practice that seek to minimise energy use, and with it greenhouse-gas emissions, and that build in resilience to climate-change impacts.

5.12

Checklist

•

Establish whether a formal Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is required.

136

Land

• • • • • • •

Consider using the EIA framework, even if not mandatory, to improve project management and planning outcomes. Scope out environmental issues at an early stage in development process. Ensure that on-site survey work identifies ecological assets/liabilities and be aware of policy and legal obligations. Recognise importance of undamaged soil and conserve it during development. Be aware of climate-related hazards, especially flooding and subsidence, and seek to avoid hazardous locations. ‘Climate proof ’ development and build sustainably in accordance with BREEAM/Code for Sustainable Homes. Recognise the importance of landscape and respect local character and distinctiveness.

6 6.1

Heritage and Archaeology

Introduction It is almost inevitable that any developer engaged in redeveloping previously developed land will, from time to time, have to take account of matters relating to heritage and archaeology. Unfortunately, these are all too often seen as being encumbrances, or problems to be overcome. This attitude is – to some extent, at least – understandable, as they can result in delays to the development project, as well as increased costs attributable to archaeological investigations, the need to use highly skilled specialist crafts people or costly materials/techniques in order to ensure compatibility with existing structures. While all of these may have an adverse impact on the development programme, it should also be recognised that heritage and archaeology can make significant contributions to the success of development projects. Developers working in historic locations such as York, or the City of London, should assume from the outset that heritage or archaeological issues will have to be addressed, and these should be factored into both the development programme and the cost plan. It is also true that they may have to be taken into account in more mundane locations, especially if the site has a long industrial history. This chapter provides a brief insight into the issues that may have to be taken into account when planning the redevelopment of a previously developed site.

6.2

Conservation policies and guidance English Heritage is the government agency charged with protecting and promoting England’s historic environment. Historic Scotland undertakes a similar role and the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland (RCAHMS) collects, records and interprets information on the architectural, industrial, archaeological and maritime heritage (see www.rcahms.gov.uk). In Wales, Cadw1 conservation policies and guidance are the responsibility of the historic environment service of the Welsh Assembly government. The Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Wales also has a 1

Pronounced cad-oo, the Welsh word meaning ‘to keep’.


138

Land

leading national role in developing and promoting understanding of the archaeological, built and maritime heritage of Wales, as the originator, curator and supplier of authoritative information for individual, corporate and governmental decision makers, researchers, and the general public (see www.rcahmw.gov.uk). In Northern Ireland, the Department of the Environment is the government department with responsibility to protect, conserve and enhance both the natural environment and the built heritage. Northern Ireland’s Planning Policy Statement 6 (NI-PPS6) Planning, Archaeology and the Built Heritage, published by the Planning Service of Northern Ireland, sets out the Department’s planning policies for the protection and conservation of archaeological remains and features of the built heritage (see www.planningni.gov.uk). This chapter primarily describes the policies and guidance in place in England, with additional references where appropriate. In his Foreword to English Heritage’s Conservation Principles – Policies and guidance for the sustainable management of the historic environment, Lord BruceLockhart said, ‘The sustainable management of the historic environment depends on sound principles, clear policies and guidance based on those principles, and the quality of decisions that stem from their consistent application’ (English Heritage, 2008). The principles, policies and guidance were developed by English Heritage through extensive debate and consultation, and the document sets out ‘a logical approach to making decisions and offering guidance about all aspects of England’s historic environment’ (English Heritage, 2008, p. 7). The objective is to help English Heritage ensure consistency in carrying out its role as the government’s statutory advisor on the historic environment. In order to avoid using the terminology of current heritage designations, the Principles, policies and guidance document adopts the term ‘place’ for any part of the historic environment that can be perceived as having a distinct identity. In using the term ‘place’, English Heritage recognises that there is no ideal term to cover everything from a shipwreck to a landscape and that there is a lack of a common, ‘high-level’ terminology. This ‘has been a barrier to articulating common principles and using them to develop a more integrated approach’ (English Heritage, 2008, p. 13). Six principles are set out in the document (Box 6.1). For town planning and urban regeneration professionals the most significant aspects of change affecting historic properties are likely to be those that involve physical changes, but conservation is not confined to the physical aspects, as it can include activities such as the interpretation and the sustainable use of places. Although changes may be inevitable they can be neutral, or even beneficial, being harmful only if the significance of the place is eroded, and proportionate to the extent of that erosion. The public interest in significant places is recognised and English Heritage acknowledges that few owners, whether public or private, can afford to maintain them without having some form of beneficial use. There are specific legislative and policy constraints on the owners of historic properties, ‘but there are few fiscal concessions to encourage conservation, and direct financial assistance is very limited’ (English Heritage, 2008, p. 43). English Heritage also acknowledges that ‘Keeping a significant place in use is likely to require continual adaptation and change,’ and states that those respon-


139

Box 6.1 English Heritage’s Conservation Principles – Policies and guidance for the sustainable management of the historic environment (based on English Heritage, 2008, pp. 19–24) Principle 1: The historic environment is a shared resource – it is shaped over time by people responding to the surroundings they inherit, reflecting the knowledge, beliefs and traditions of diverse communities. Succeeding generations should shape and sustain the historic environment in ways that are sustainable – allowing people to use, enjoy and benefit from it, without compromising the ability of future generations to do the same. Principle 2: Everyone should be able to participate in sustaining the historic environment – learning is central to sustaining the historic environment, through raising people’s awareness and understanding of their heritage, encouraging participation in caring for the historic environment. Principle 3: Understanding the significance of places is vital – cultural and natural heritage values grow in strength and complexity over time, as understanding and perceptions of a place evolve. It is important to consider: • • • • • •

who values the place, and why they do so; how those values relate to its fabric; their relative importance; whether associated objects contribute to them; the contribution made by the setting and context of the place; how the place compares with others sharing similar values.

Principle 4: Significant places should be managed to sustain their values – change in the historic environment is inevitable, and conservation is the process of managing change in ways that will best sustain heritage values, recognising opportunities to reveal or reinforce those values for present and future generations. Principle 5: Decisions about change must be reasonable, transparent and consistent – requiring expertise, experience and judgement, in a consistent, transparent process guided by public policy. Principle 6: Documenting and learning from decisions is essential – accessible records of the justification for decisions and the actions that follow them are crucial to maintaining a cumulative account of what has happened to a significant place, and understanding how and why its significance may have been altered.

sible for significant places should not be discouraged ‘from adding further layers of potential future interest and value, provided that recognised heritage values are not eroded or compromised in the process’ (English Heritage, 2008, p. 43). It is therefore important to form an early understanding of the impacts or consequences of proposed changes, whether they are to the physical fabric or to the use of a significant place. Specific investigations may be required in order to understand the processes of change and other factors having the potential to make the ‘significance’ of the place vulnerable to harm or loss. Such investigations may need to be of a technical nature, taking account not only of physical, or tangible, aspects

140

Land

of change, but also those that are more intangible, or likely to be fully appreciated only over the passage of time. Enshrined in the first of the six principles is a requirement that significant places should be used and managed in ways that will, wherever possible, ensure that their significance can be appreciated by generations to come. Of particular interest to planning and urban regeneration professionals is the fact that ‘Many historic settlements and neighbourhoods, tending towards high density and mixed use, provide a model of sustainable development’ (English Heritage, 2008, p. 46). Lessons from the past, especially those requiring low levels of energy consumption, can be beneficial when planning for the communities of the future. Any redevelopment, even the change of use, of a ‘significant place’, whether it is of historic, architectural or archaeological importance, will require a full evaluation of the options for the buildings or the site. These will, in many cases, range from a simple ‘do nothing’ approach to comprehensive redevelopment. Such an evaluation will require inputs from many different agencies, organisations and individuals, including English Heritage, national and local conservation societies, the local planning authority, landowners and users of the ‘significant place’ whether existing or proposed. In the redevelopment context, reconciling these different interests, and potentially diverse opinions, may require the use of ‘heritage impact assessment’ so as to arrive at ‘a clear understanding of the impact of the proposal on the significance of the site’ (English Heritage, 2001, p. 33). The impact assessment will need to compare the predicted effects of alternative courses of action, in order to identify the optimum solution. It will consider the site’s significance, based on how it has changed through time, and take account of what survives. Developing this clear understanding at the outset will enable the applicant, the planning authority and other stakeholders to ‘grasp, and seek to minimise, the impact of proposals on that significance as options are explored and a scheme developed’ (English Heritage, 2001, p. 33). The approach can be refined by weighting different values to reflect their relative importance for the place and its significance, and ‘Heritage impact assessment can be particularly useful if applied at the conceptual stage of a proposal, and refined at each successive step towards making a decision’ (English Heritage, 2008, p. 47). The heritage impact assessment should also take account of the ‘positive’ aspects of redevelopment proposals, such as that ‘the removal of detrimental modern buildings or accretions may enhance, or more correctly reveal, significance’ (English Heritage, 2001, p. 34). Ideally the impact assessment should be an iterative process, subject to revision as a redevelopment proposal evolves, in just the same way as the development appraisal should be revised as more information becomes available about the site, the development costs and the market. If, after all the options have been considered and the heritage impact assessment has been carried out, the conclusion is reached that some loss of heritage value – including loss of or damage to the fabric – is inevitable, then mitigation measures should be considered. Those may comprise the preparation of a photographic record, or the removal of artefacts or parts of the structure and their relocation elsewhere on the site or to a place of safety. Relocation may be either temporary, for example to safeguard elements of the place during construction


141

works, or it may be permanent. Whatever course of action is decided upon, implementation of the selected option should be monitored and evaluated as part of a conservation management plan, as these, if reviewed regularly, ‘can provide a sound framework for the management of significant places, particularly those in responsible long-term ownership’ (English Heritage, 2008, p. 48).

6.3

Planning and the historic environment As noted in chapter 2, Planning Policy Guidance Note 15 – Planning and the Historic Environment, (published September 1994) was to be replaced by a new Planning Policy Statement – PPS15. When the manuscript for this book was completed, publication of the new PPS was expected in spring 2010 and it was published on 23 March 2010 as Planning Policy Statement 5 – Planning for our Historic Environment (PPS5) (CLG, 2010b). The new PPS has replaced the planning policy guidance (PPG) notes 15 – Planning and the Historic Environment and 16 – Archaeology and Planning. It takes account of the commitment in the White Paper Planning for a Sustainable Future (CLG, 2007d) to streamline existing PPGs and PPSs and separate out policy from guidance. The PPS is supported by practice guidance prepared by English Heritage – Planning for the Historic Environment: Practice Guide (English Heritage, 2010) – also published in March 2010 and downloadable from the English Heritage website (www.englishheritage.org.uk). The introduction to the PPS15 consultation document, published in July 2009, noted that the ‘historic environment is central to our cultural heritage’ and observed that it ‘contributes to our sense of national, local and community identity, through the memories of events and phases in our history that it holds’. It also noted the importance of the aesthetic value in providing local distinctiveness, and acknowledged that it can support economic development. By providing opportunities for leisure and recreation, the historic environment contributes to the regeneration of communities, thus enhancing ‘the quality of our daily lives’ (CLG, 2009i, p. 5). The draft PPS, combining both archaeology and historic buildings, was regarded as being central to the government’s aims for heritage reform, reflecting ‘a more modern, integrated approach, moving beyond the outdated distinction between buildings and archaeology to embrace all of the historic environment’. The draft also defined the historic environment in terms of heritage assets to be conserved or even enhanced, in accordance with a set of common principles in proportion to their significance, these being ‘defined in terms of historic, archaeological, architectural or artistic interest’ (CLG, 2009i, p. 6). The Historic Towns Forum (HTF) initially welcomed the consultation Draft of PPS15 but, having studied its content, was extremely concerned and disappointed at certain of its messages. The HTF considered that the draft PPS was fundamentally compromised by the failure to enact the Heritage Protection Bill, as without this the PPS appeared vague and could be open to legal challenge (www.historictownsforum.org, accessed January 2010). In November 2009 the Department for Communities and Local Government issued a new circular to local authorities (CLG, 2009g), extending the categories

142

Land

of listed building consent applications in respect of which local planning authorities are not required to notify the Secretary of State. The new direction took effect on 1 December 2009 for applications received on or after that date; as from then the Secretary of State needs to be notified only of applications where the local planning authority is minded to grant consent and has received written objections from English Heritage or one of the six National Amenity Societies covered by the direction. In a covering letter to Chief Planning Officers it was explained that the circular introduced a change from the previous situation, whereby the Secretary of State had to be notified of all applications that the planning authority was minded to approve affecting Grade I and Grade II* buildings, as well as those applications for Grade II (unstarred) buildings involving demolition of the principal building, the principal wall of a principal building, or a substantial part of the interior (CLG, 2009h). The letter to the Chief Planning Officers also stated that responses to consultation on the new arrangement confirmed the Department’s view that it will not result in any reduction of the necessary levels of protection, will further help to simplify procedures, and the Secretary of State will still retain the option to call in any application where it is thought necessary to do so. In March 2010 the UK Government published a policy statement on England’s historic environment, in which it set out its belief that the historic environment is an asset of enormous cultural, social, economic and environmental value, which makes a very real contribution to quality of life and the quality of places (DCMS, 2010). The Statement recognises that, while some of today’s achievements may become tomorrow’s heritage, existing heritage assets are irreplaceable. It considers key opportunities for future involvement and the challenges that must be addressed. Analysis of these challenges and opportunities has led to six broad, strategic aims that government [and everyone involved with the historic environment] should strive to meet: 1

2

3

4

5

Strategic Leadership: Ensure that relevant policy, guidance, and standards across government emphasise our responsibility to manage England’s historic environment for present and future generations. Protective Framework: Ensure that all heritage assets are afforded an appropriate and effective level of protection, while allowing, where appropriate, for well-managed and intelligent change. Local Capacity: Encourage structures, skills and systems at a local level that promote early consideration of the historic environment; ensure that local decision makers have access to the expertise they need; and provide sufficiently skilled people to execute proposed changes to heritage assets sensitively and sympathetically. Public Involvement: Promote opportunities to place people and communities at the centre of the designation and management of their local historic environment and to make use of heritage as a focus for learning and community identity at all levels. Direct Ownership: Ensure that all heritage assets in public ownership meet appropriate standards of care and use, while allowing, where appropriate, for well-managed and intelligent change (DCMS, 2010, p. 2).


6

143

Sustainable Future: Seek to promote the role of the historic environment within the government’s response to climate change and as part of its sustainable-development agenda.

PPS5 and the English Heritage practice guidance were published alongside the government’s statement. The policies contained in PPS5 are a material consideration which, where relevant, must be taken into account in development management decisions in England. Those parts of the historic environment that have significance because of their historic, archaeological, architectural or artistic interest are referred to in the PPS as ‘heritage assets’ (CLG, 2010b). The PPS also sits alongside, and interacts with, other policies and regulations pertaining to historic environments, including, for example, the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, as well as those in National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty referred to in PPS4 – Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth and PPS7 – Sustainable Development in Rural Areas. The objective of PPS5 is to deliver sustainable development, while at the same time ensuring the conservation of the historic environment and its heritage assets so that they may be ‘enjoyed for the quality of life they bring to this and future generations’ (CLG, 2010b, p. 2). In practical terms, when considering applications for the redevelopment of brownfield sites that may contain heritage assets, ‘Local planning authorities should require an applicant to provide a description of the significance of the heritage assets affected and the contribution of their setting to that significance.’ … This information, together with an assessment of the impact of the proposal, should be set out in the application (within the design and access statement when that is required) as part of the explanation of the design concept’ (CLG, 2010b, p. 6). Compliance with the requirements of the local planning authority under PPS5 may well involve the prospective developer of a previously developed ‘brownfield’ site in commissioning archaeological investigations, or other specialist assessments of the historic context of the site, and in additional works to conserve or preserve the heritage assets.

6.4

Archaeology and redevelopment A high proportion of projects involving the redevelopment or reuse of previously developed land in urban areas will involve listed buildings, or sites where archaeological remains may be encountered. As the conservation body in England, English Heritage must be notified of all alterations involving an element of demolition and allowed access to buildings which it wishes to record. Both the decision to record a particular building and the level of detail are made with English Heritage’s own priorities and budgetary constraints. A decision by English Heritage not to record does not mean that no record is necessary. The local authority may therefore seek to impose its own recording conditions on any consent. Over 4,000 listed building applications from England and Wales are sent to the Council for British Archaeology (CBA) each year. Using a network of expert local correspondents, a specialist panel of advisors and professional staff, the CBA advises on how to minimise the impact of a proposal, and also on assessment and

144

Land

recording. It is useful to obtain assessments during the inception stage of development projects. These are usually rapid and relatively inexpensive. They can help to avoid time-consuming and possibly costly alterations at later stages and should indicate the limits of alteration which would be appropriate. The local county or district archaeologist should be able to advise on the scope of such an assessment and on appropriately qualified people to carry it out. The CBA publishes a factsheet on Archaeology and buildings (CBA, 2009), which includes a list of useful addresses. This can be downloaded from the CBA’s website at www.britarch.ac.uk/conservation/buildings. Even sites that have been cleared of buildings may have to undergo archaeological investigation, and that includes contaminated brownfield sites. Several years ago the author was involved with a former landfill site in Tameside, which actually comprised two closed, but unlined, landfills. One landfill contained mainly inert wastes, soils, demolition materials, etc., while the other contained a very wide mix of industrial wastes and domestic refuse, generating significant quantities of landfill gas and leachate. Dividing the two landfills was an area of natural ground within which were the remains of a medieval farmhouse, but no above-ground structures remained. The archaeologists had to be provided with respirators and other specialist equipment, as they were digging trenches in an area that could have been affected by migrating landfill gases. In 1993 the Association of County Archaeological Officers published useful guidance on the preparation of briefs and specifications for archaeological assessments and field evaluations. This followed a five-stage sequence (Box 6.2).

6.5

Summary In early 2010 planning policy guidance relating to archaeology and heritage issues was still under review and, in this chapter, it has not been possible to do much more than alert the reader to the fact that new planning policies are imminent. The government’s intention here does seem to be one of bringing together both archaeological and heritage matters into a single planning-policy statement, so as to ensure that they are dealt with in a holistic manner. The sequence of five stages described in this chapter provides a useful template to assist development surveyors with their assessment of previously developed sites.

6.6

Checklist

• •

When dealing with previously developed sites, especially those that have been in use for more than 100 years and where several distinct phases of development have taken place, assume that there may be a requirement for archaeological investigation. Check the situation with the relevant County Archaeologist or other appropriate body and, if the need for an investigation seems likely, factor adequate time and money into the development plan.


•

145

Check whether any buildings or other structures on the site are scheduled Ancient Monuments or listed buildings and, if so, consult the relevant authorities at the earliest possible stage.

Box 6.2 Guidance from the Association of County Archaeological Officers on the preparation of briefs and specifications for archaeological assessments and field evaluations (source: Association of County Archaeological Officers, 1993) •

•

•

An Appraisal is a rapid reconnaissance of site and records to identify whether a development proposal has a potential archaeological dimension requiring further clarification. An Assessment is a thorough review of all existing archaeological information relating to an area potentially affected by proposals for development, stopping short of further data collection and synthesis through primary research, including fieldwork. A Field Evaluation is a programme of intrusive and/or non-intrusive fieldwork designed to supplement and improve existing information to a level of confidence at which planning recommendations can be made. According to the scale and circumstances of a case, some of the stages of Appraisal, Assessment and Field Evaluation may be run together as a sequence. Some may begin with a Field Evaluation, incorporating work that in other cases would have been done earlier in an Assessment. Always, it is important to: (a) ensure applicants provide adequate information; (b) keep the stages of work required of them as simple as possible; (c) keep archaeological requirements made of a developer reasonable and necessary.

•

•

A Brief is defined as an outline framework of the planning and archaeological situation which has to be addressed, together with an indication of the scope of works that will be required. A Specification is a schedule of works in sufficient detail to be quantifiable, implemented and monitored.

The document is now out of print, but electronic copies can be downloaded from the website of the Association of Local Government Archaeological Officers: www.algao.org.uk. The Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA) has published Archaeology and Development: A good-practice guide to managing risk and maximising benefit, report C672 (2008). This guide provides developers with independent and practical advice and information regarding archaeology, drawing on the array of existing guidance. It is illustrated by a series of case studies showing good practice, including a few cautionary examples of less well-planned events that have led to difficulties both for developers and the archaeological heritage. It is intended for all members of the professional teams, including archaeologists, involved with development and construction dealing with sites of known or potential archaeological interest.

7 7.1

Community Involvement in Tackling Blight and Dereliction

Introduction ‘It is now widely accepted that meaningful community involvement is absolutely central to the development of healthy, strong and sustainable communities’ (www.communityinvolvement.org.uk). Nevertheless, the nature and extent of community involvement varies considerably when brownfield regeneration projects are being considered. One of the most significant problems associated with unused and under-utilised land is its potential to cause visual blight, which, in turn, can lead to adverse economic consequences. While it is also the case that some previously developed sites, if left to their own devices, will gradually revert to something resembling a ‘natural landscape’, many small urban sites may suffer detrimental consequences that seem to be disproportionately severe. Tackling these blighted eyesores is an important objective of many urban regeneration projects and one in which local communities have important roles to play. By no means all ‘blighted’ brownfield sites are unused, vacant or abandoned. Some may still be in partial or even full use, but with poorly maintained sites and buildings being allowed to become derelict. ‘Many issues around the subject of visual blight occur when the area is deprived and there are problems with housing, the environment and the perception of the area within the community. Visual blight can range from fly-tipping, dog-fouling, graffiti to properties in disrepair, overgrown shrubs, derelict properties and vandalised street furniture’ (Murray, 2009). Quite often these ‘in use’ premises may be classed as ‘latent’ brownfield sites that, for one or more reasons, may be failing to come forward for redevelopment, even in localities with moderate to good property markets. The reasons why so many properties exist to blight their local environments are considered in this chapter.

7.2

Economic and visual blight The visual deterioration of land and premises over a period of time, which may range from several months to several years, is usually the first indicator of blight. The cause is often attributed to weak or failing property markets being unable to Land, Development and Design, 2e. By Paul Syms © 2010 Paul Syms


147

deliver the regeneration of the area. This can have the effect of further depressing property values, not only for the site itself but also for neighbouring properties, or even across entire neighbourhoods. Depressed property values in turn lead to greater frequency of unused or under-utilised premises. Even when premises remain in use, the operations they accommodate are likely to make only limited contributions to the local economy. More successful companies will seek to relocate, taking the better and higher-paid jobs with them, so leading to even further economic decline. The city of Davis in California expands on Murray’s definition of visual blight, describing it as ‘any unreasonable, non-permitted or unlawful condition or use of real property, premises or of building exteriors which by reason of its appearance as viewed from the public right-of-way, is detrimental to the property of others or to the value of property of others, offensive to the senses, or reduces the aesthetic appearance of the neighborhood’ (City of Davis Municipal Code, chapter 23.01.03(9): see http://cityofdavis.org/cmo/citycode). The emphasis here is on untidy or derelict areas being in public view and the most common violations are listed as being:

• • • • • • •

uncontrolled grass or weeds (over 4 inches tall) in public view and lacking regular maintenance; dry grass and weeds that present a fire hazard; materials placed on the street or sidewalk; garbage/trash scattered around the property; indoor furniture on the front of the property in public view; dilapidated or inoperative vehicles parked on private property and in public view; construction activity without required zoning approvals and/or building permits.

As well as unreasonable, unpermitted or unlawful conditions or uses, land uses approved or permitted by local planning authorities can contribute to visual blight. Most obvious amongst these are ‘bad neighbour’ uses that emit excessive quantities of dust, fumes, odours or noise. Proliferations of advertising hoardings, or billboards in the US, are a good example of ‘permitted use’, and even official road signs can multiply to such an extent as to become offensive, or confusing to road users. As an example of community work in action to tackle blight, the Lancashire borough of Hyndburn arranges regular visits in the Peel and Barnfield areas by the Community Pride Caretaker Team, to help tackle fly-tipping and back-alley rubbish. As part of the Neighbourhood Management activity in the area, the Community Pride Caretaker Team removes items ranging from abandoned pieces of furniture to bags of household rubbish. Every four or five weeks the Neighbourhood Management team organises ‘walkabouts’ in the area with ward councillors, residents, police and environmental-health officers, and representatives from other agencies to identify any local issues and concerns. They make a point of turning up whatever the weather, ‘come rain or come shine’, to discuss problems and see what needs to be done. These ‘street audits’ are advertised by

148

Land

posters and a leaflet drop a week before the audit and, if residents have issues they would like to discuss, they can request a visit by simply displaying leaflets in their front windows. In support of this work, Hyndburn Borough Council and Accent Group (a Registered Social Landlord) commissioned a ‘visual blight audit’ in the Peel and Barnfield Neighbourhood Management area. The 2008–09 audit was funded by Elevate East Lancashire, one of the government’s Housing Market Renewal pathfinders, charged with finding innovative solutions to the problem of low demand and housing market collapse in towns across Pennine Lancashire. Residents of the area were asked to complete audits forms for any properties in the area that they considered to be unsightly. The simple audit asked the following questions, requiring Yes/No answers:

• • • • • • • •

Is there an impact on the amenity of the area? Are there any dangerous structures? Has the structure of the property been affected? Has there been unauthorised development on site? Is the property occupied? Has the property been boarded up? Does the property have bill posters on it? Have there been complaints made about it?

In addition, respondents were asked to supply the address of the property, or its location and, where possible, photographs. They were also invited to provide a brief description of the problem, keeping it as factual as possible, and to give suggestions as to the type of work that might be required. The visual blight form was originally produced so that residents, councillors and board members could identify visual blight sites/properties within the area and the process could proceed with the necessary agencies. In the vast majority of cases it is a department or, in some cases, departments within Hyndburn Borough Council that have to try and resolve the issue. The form was made available on the Council’s website and at the Neighbourhood Management office, but this produced only limited response. Instead, local residents tend to contact the Neighbourhood Management office to report the issue, and then a member of staff will take some photographs of the visual blight site in order to start liaison with the necessary department. English Partnerships, in its Brownfield Guide, made the following point: ‘Shortterm but well-considered actions such as securing site boundaries, removing hazardous structures and encouraging natural attenuation processes can effectively remove visual blight, dereliction and further contamination’ (English Partnerships, 2006, p. 15). From this it follows that local authorities, working with local communities and landowners, should take positive action to combat visual blight, even if there is no viable new use for the site. Failing to take such actions will lead to increases in the misuse of land, for example fly-tipping, thereby increasing the problems and making any future actions even more costly.


149

As explained above, visual blight in its various forms can lead to economic blight, leading to a downward spiral of decline, but there can also be other contributory factors that result in properties or areas being blighted. Under the existing UK regulatory frameworks, land remediation and waste are difficult to separate (English Partnerships, 2006, p. 23), which means that blight could exist following the remediation of a contaminated site if the Waste Management Licence or other authorisation were to remain in force post remediation, for example through an extended monitoring period. In such situations land that has been restored to a condition making it ‘suitable for use’ and visually ready for development may suffer a reduction in value, or may fail to attract a purchaser until such time as the monitoring or other conditions have been satisfied and the licence or permit surrendered or extinguished. In an attempt to reduce, or remove, the possible adverse effects associated with site remediation using Waste Management Licences, in 2006 the Environment Agency (in England) introduced Mobile Treatment Licences, which cease to apply once the relevant plant has been removed from the site. These are considered further in Chapter 8.

7.3

The benefits of removing blight Removing visual blight through bringing brownfield sites back into some form or forms of beneficial use can produce a number of measurable benefits. In addition to the direct benefit of reducing the quantum of brownfield land, it can engender a pride in neighbourhoods, with the ability to reduce graffiti and vandalism. It can also produce identifiable results in terms of reducing crime and substance abuse. The Groundwork organisation (www.groundwork.org.uk/) supports communities in need, working with partners to help improve the quality of people’s lives, their prospects and potential and the places where they live, work and play. Its vision is of ‘a society of sustainable communities that are vibrant, healthy and safe, that respect the local and global environment, and where individuals and enterprise prosper’. Groundwork Trusts are charities operating throughout the United Kingdom, supported by an umbrella organisation – Groundwork UK. In North West England alone Groundwork delivers around 1200 regeneration projects each year, many of which are aimed at tackling the problems of blight and dereliction. Some of these are relatively large-scale, covering whole neighbourhoods or similar large areas of land, while others are on a more human scale or address issues affecting individual properties. The case studies described in Boxes 7.1 to 7.4 below provide examples of the broad range of projects undertaken by Groundwork, working with local communities. Many of our industrial trading estates developed in the late 1960s through to the mid-1980s are starting to show signs of their age. The earliest estates were typically let on 21-year leases with rent reviews at the end of every seventh year, but the majority, from the 1970s onwards, would have been let on slightly longer leases for terms of 25 years, with upwards-only rent reviews at the end of every fifth year. In virtually all cases the leases would have made the tenants responsible

150

Land

for all repairs to the buildings and for insurance (although the latter was often paid by the landlord under a block policy and recovered from the tenant in the form of additional rent). For the most part the original leases have now come to an end, and where they have been renewed the new leases most probably will have been for shorter terms than the original ones – say for ten or fifteen years at the most. On many estates few, if any, of the original tenants remain in occupation of the buildings and leases will have been assigned to other occupiers, often of a lower commercial standing than the original tenants, who may have been of ‘blue chip’ status – hence the covenant strength of the investment is reduced and the yield rate increased. It follows, therefore, that these tenants may well be less interested in ensuring a high standard of repair and visual maintenance of the estate. The case study in Box 7.1 shows how these problems have been tackled on one estate.

Box 7.1 A sustainable future for our industrial estates (source: Groundwork, 2006a) Winsford Industrial Estate Green Business Park is based in the heart of Cheshire. Created in the 1960s to provide work for communities relocated from Manchester and Liverpool, it began to go into decline during the 1970s, and local unemployment increased. By the beginning of the twenty-first century many of the buildings were vacant, there were high levels of crime and the area had a poor perception as a good place to do business; nevertheless the estate still provided employment for several thousand people. In 2001 Winsford Industrial Estate was selected to become one of the seven ENWORKS beacon green business parks in the North West and, in 2005, a sustainable future was assured when the businesses voted to become a Business Improvement District (BID) – the first industrial estate in the country to do so, and with a massive 89 per cent majority. The green business park initiative has turned the estate around and now provides a model for others to follow. The regeneration project had five programmes of work: • • • • •

security and business improvement sustainable transport improvement community links roadway improvements, signage and landscape waste minimisation and pollution prevention.

A crucial part of the five-year programme was a focus on succession planning. Groundwork’s role within the project was to facilitate the regeneration through coordination of a group of business and public-sector representatives, beginning by surveying the business needs of the businesses on the estate. It is important to note that this process was led by businesses rather than being imposed upon them. Following consultation, a landscape master plan was produced, providing a clear vision for the future development of the estate. A range of physical improvements have now taken place, including new signage giving the estate a modern, professional image, plus radical improvements to roads and pathways; see Figure 7.1.


151

Figure 7.1 Winsford Industrial Estate, visually improved through a partnership between Groundwork and the business community

Lessons learned from this case study included that when engaging businesses in environmental issues, it is important to begin by listening to their concerns and problems, rather than having a fixed agenda. Regular visits to the businesses meant that Groundwork built a strong relationship, and picked up on issues – such as the high level of crime – that were going unreported. Groundwork was then able to work with the police and the businesses. The project involved many different partners from the public and private sectors, with funding provided by United Utilities. The River Medlock is sometimes described as Manchester’s forgotten river, flowing through a post-industrial valley famous for fly-tipping and antisocial behaviour. As the result of a £2 million partnership project, involving Manchester City Council, New East Manchester, North West Development Agency, the Environment Agency, Red Rose Forest, Groundwork and the local community, it is now the winner of a BURA Waterway Renaissance Award; see Box 7.2. This case study clearly demonstrates that it is possible to involve large numbers of people in community regeneration projects, across a full range of ages. Such involvement ensures that people develop a pride in the area and want to see it maintained in good condition for the use of future generations. Schemes such as these make significant contributions to the health and well-being of communities.

Box 7.2 How Green is my Medlock Valley (source: Groundwork, 2009) This project set out to transform a 90-hectare site with a range of environmental improvements – and create a programme of activities and community building to ensure the site is well used and well loved. Key objectives included: • • • • • •

to create a strong sense of place and identity for the Medlock Valley; to promote community ownership and involvement within the valley; to improve the open spaces within the valley; to increase the activities on offer and address safety and security; to create a wider range of facilities catering for different users; to enable the valley to develop its full role in the wider regeneration agenda, linking with new development and attracting future investment.

Making the project happen involved some innovative thinking regarding procurement – achieved through a new framework agreement negotiated with the Housing Market Renewal team in East Manchester. This ensured unique access to the same landscape design team and contractor; the benefits being consistent communication and standards of practice, pricing and quality of work. Four years of environmental improvements and community engagement have helped transform the area from a no-go zone into a key recreational facility. Major physical changes have included extensive new pathways, a new bridge and land improvements; see Figure 7.2.

Figure 7.2 Medlock Valley: before and after (source: Groundwork, 2009, reproduced with permission)

At the time of the Groundwork report in 2009 the project had involved 6,900 adults, 6,107 young people, and 541 events had been held involving local people, schools and an army of volunteers. Regular health walks involved people drawn from all over the area and attracted all ages, ranging from a three-year-old boy to a 94-year-old woman. The valley is visited by many thousands of people each year, enjoying walking, angling, cycling and wildlife-spotting. Kingfishers and dippers are also regular visitors to the river valley and anglers report trout biting in the Medlock.


153

Both of the projects described in Boxes 7.1 and 7.2 are large scale ‘area-wide’ regeneration initiatives, aimed at counteracting long-term economic and physical decline. As noted in chapter 2 and in the Brownfield Guide (English Partnerships, 2006, pp. B3–4), it is small sites that are often the most difficult to remediate and return to beneficial use. Yet these small ‘eyesore’ sites often have a disproportionate impact on the quality of life in their localities, affecting both the well-being of the residents and the economic base of the area. The case studies in Boxes 7.3 and 7.4 explain how two such problems have been tackled by Groundwork. Box 7.3 describes how a group of partners worked with the local community after a derelict allotment site attracted numerous complaints. This project has allowed Groundwork to forge stronger working relationships with the health development officers at the local PCT and the two organisations now have biannual meetings. These have led to the development of two further health projects. One of these is a community gardens project, aimed at creating four community gardens or allotment spaces in local communities with high health deprivation. These four sites will be used to engage users who are hard to reach with health services such as smoking cessation and consumption of five fruit and vegetables a day. ‘Houses with overgrown gardens can signal vulnerability – and therefore be more likely to be burgled’ (Groundwork, 2006b). Derelict, overgrown eyesores are not always the result of sites being abandoned, under-utilised or unloved; they can also be attributable to a declining ability to maintain them. In the industrial context, such as Winsford Industrial Estate described in Box 7.1, it may be down to increased vacancy rates, or businesses finding it hard to compete in the marketplace, and therefore having limited resources available to maintain their buildings and landscaping. At the domestic scale it may be due to old age and infirmity, resulting in people being unable to care for the gardens which were once their pride and joy. The fourth Groundwork case study in this chapter on blight and dereliction looks at one way in which this problem has been tackled; see Box 7.4. The case studies in Boxes 7.1 to 7.4 provide four excellent, but very different examples of how communities can get involved in tackling derelict and disused land. In some instances, however, even derelict brownfield sites that have started to revert to the natural landscape can be regarded by the local community as valuable assets. The Northwich case study used in chapter 4 to demonstrate the importance of comprehensive site investigations provides a good example of this happening. As mentioned in chapter 4, the shipyard run by W.J. Yarwood & Sons Ltd closed in the mid-1960s and the buildings were demolished at around the same time. From then until the early 1990s the site remained derelict, unfenced, with open access for all. The site was eventually acquired by Vale Royal District Council for a nominal sum. The council’s intention was to develop the site with social housing, but then it discovered the contamination problems in the ground. After taking professional advice and commissioning the site investigation the council decided to offer the site for mixed-use redevelopment through a public/ private partnership and invited proposals from prospective developers. The developers were required to submit their ideas for development of the site and community consultation was carried out. It immediately became clear that there was likely to be significant local opposition to redevelopment of the site.

154

Land

Box 7.3 From eyesore to allotment for health (source: Groundwork, 2005)

Figure 7.3 From eyesore to allotment for health (source: Jason Lock Photography, http://www.jasonlock.co.uk/, reproduced with permission)

This project was based on the creation of a community allotment located in Tyldesley, near Wigan, close to terraced properties and a health centre. It developed from partnership discussions between the Primary Care Trust (PCT), Sure Start, Workers Educational Association (WEA), Wigan Leisure & Culture Trust and Tyldesley Allotment Association. The principal objective of the partnership was to improve the health of local people, create opportunities for them and improve the local environment. The aims of the community allotment project were to tackle anti-social behaviour and vandalism at the derelict plot; address health-deprivation issues (physical, nutritional and mental health); seek to counter social isolation amongst the elderly and young mothers in particular; reduce unemployment; and remedy the lack of nutritional knowledge and cooking skills amongst young mothers. The main objectives of the project were to: • • • •

encourage volunteers to participate in physical exercise through gardening; provide opportunities for social stimulation, fresh air, exercise and the acquisition of new skills and knowledge, thereby improving the mental health of participants; reduce obesity and improve diet and nutrition through these measures and the provision of cooking-for-fun classes; advertise and encourage participants from all ethnic groups, from all age groups and from groups with disabilities.

With the support of a project worker, the transformation began with site development and providing resources for volunteers. These included the purchase and erection of a small polytunnel, the building of a porch and guttering to effectively collect rainwater, provision of water butts, and the supply of a large range of tools, seeds and plants, including herbs and wildflowers. Like most community development programmes, it took time to make contact with potential participants and users of the resource, but that work is vital to success.


155

Box 7.4 A green-fingered approach to better health (source: Groundwork, 2006b) Back in the 1950s, sending telegrams to those celebrating their 100th birthday was a minor job for the newly crowned Queen. Just 300 or so of her subjects would reach a centenary – but that’s expected to rise to 36,000 by 2031. That demographic shift in the population will have a huge impact on how we live in the future, but living longer is only attractive if we’re able to remain fit and healthy and independent for as long as possible. Ensuring access to healthy food and opportunities to take part in regular exercise will help ensure that we have an older generation that is able to take a full part in society. The quality of the local environment can play a crucial role in keeping us active, but for older people, neighbourhoods that are perceived to be unsafe with derelict spaces can be a major factor in reducing walking and increasing fear of crime and levels of stress. The Active Gardens Exchange Scheme (AGES) is an example of an initiative that aims to improve health for volunteers and older people in Bury, Greater Manchester. Often, poor environments can begin at the front door. Maintaining a garden can become difficult in later life and that can be the beginning of a road that leads from independent living into a care home. AGES provides an innovative solution to the problem by matching up older people who need a gardening service with local people who would benefit from taking more exercise in a social setting with other volunteers. AGES is part of Groundwork’s Healthy Places Healthy Lives programme funded by the Department of Health and Kelloggs, which initiated fourteen projects in partnership with PCTs linking health and the environment across the North West. The programme won a ‘North West Public Health Award’ for ‘Voluntary Sector Contribution to Public Health’. The majority of volunteers have been local people dealing with mental health conditions, although the scheme could equally benefit those with physical conditions such as heart problems or those who simply want to improve their general health through being more active. The scheme is a good example of the type of creative thinking necessary to encourage physical activity among people who may not be able to afford to visit a gym. Many of the volunteers were attracted by the idea of doing gardening in a social setting, rather than by doing exercise, and this approach to increasing physical activity could be crucial in developing healthier communities.

For almost three decades the land had been in use as informal open space; people walked their dogs on it and children played there, notwithstanding the fact that contamination had been found. Cars were parked there and people walked across the land to go fishing in the River Weaver. There were also concerns about the amount of traffic that would be generated by people living and working on the redeveloped site, coupled with concerns relating to lorries removing contaminated soil from the site, as Navigation Road is only a narrow street. It was therefore clear that comprehensive redevelopment of the entire site would not be welcomed by the local community. Still the site needed to be decontaminated, but the only way to achieve that objective was to extract some value out of the land.

156

Land

A decision was taken to develop only that part of the site closest to Navigation Road and Spencer Street – the land to the north of the railway viaduct – and, as part of the land remediation project, to restore the southern area for continued use as informal open space, with proper car parking provision for people using the area or fishing in the river. The traffic-related concerns meant that a high-density scheme would not be acceptable, so the development proposal selected was of medium density, mostly two-storey residential units aimed at firsttime buyers, together with some social housing and some shared-equity townhouses. The northernmost part of the site was developed with two small office buildings, one of which became the offices for Groundwork – Macclesfield and Vale Royal, now Groundwork Cheshire; see the map in Figure 7.4 and photographs in Figure 7.5.

Figure 7.4 Map of the Navigation Road Northwich case study site, as developed, reproduced by permission of Ordnance Survey


157

Figure 7.5 Navigation Road Northwich, new homes, offices and public open space

In order to address the local concerns about traffic carrying contaminated spoil from the site, the remediation project had to be planned in such a way as to retain as much as possible of the material on site. The scheme agreed with the Environment Agency involved classifying the contaminated material into three categories, as follows: Category 1: Category 2:

Category 3:

Material with contaminant concentrations above agreed trigger values for public open space; Material with concentrations below the agreed trigger values for public open space for all but the phytotoxic metals (those that are toxic to plants but not to humans – e.g. copper, zinc and nickel), but above the agreed trigger values for domestic gardens; Material below the trigger values.

The Category 1 material was excavated from the northern part of the site, north of the railway viaduct, and disposed of to landfill, while the rest of the material

158

Land

was reused on site, as follows. The category 2 material was used either as a base material for making up the southern area of the site to designated levels, for flood protection and to form the new open space, or else retained within the northern area, in areas away from private gardens, and graded to contours appropriate to the new development. The category 3 material was also retained on the northern area and graded to contours appropriate to the new development. Finally, both the northern and southern areas were capped with a layer of clay and topsoil, to around one metre depth (source: AEA Technology, 1996, p. 4). In summary, contaminants likely to be harmful to human health were removed from the site, but some soil that was potentially harmful to plant life was retained on site, under a cap layer. That this has worked is clear from the excellent vegetation growth on the site; see Figure 7.5. Samples of the soil to be retained on site were subjected to leachability testing by the Environment Agency, so as to ensure that contaminants would not dissolve and leach towards the river. The entire project was made possible by a grant of £500,000 from English Partnerships.

7.4

Skills The National Brownfield Strategy for England – see chapter 2 – included a policy recommendation aimed at strengthening and improving the process of preparing land for reuse ‘through the accreditation of suitably qualified and experienced practitioners, [and] ensure that new practitioners are provided with the necessary skills and training’ (English Partnerships, 2007, policy recommendation F). As part of preparing the National Brownfield Strategy, a decision was taken jointly with the Academy for Sustainable Communities (later the HCA Academy) to undertake a brownfield skill audit and to draft a Brownfield Skills Strategy (Academy for Sustainable Communities et al., 2008). The draft strategy defines brownfield skills as ‘the skills needed for sustainable reuse of land now and in the future, ensuring protection of the wider environment’ (p, 15), which it saw as drawing on the skill sets available across many occupations, including engineers, urban designers, architects, regulators, construction and remediation contractors, project managers and others. It observed that there are a number of limitations in using conventional occupation datasets for making projections of skills shortages, such as the following:

• •

The occupations drawn on for brownfield reuse do not fit easily within the Government Standard Occupation Classification (SOC) and Labour Force Survey boundaries. They often cross these boundaries and do not necessarily draw on every occupation listed within a Labour Force category. The boundaries of occupations utilised are not fixed or certain. Neither are they necessarily specific to one or more sectors. This is because of the fast pace of the market, policy and regulatory contexts that impact on the reuse of brownfield land. The skills needed for an occupation will change, sometimes rapidly.


• •

159

The occupations must keep up with the skill-set requirements and evolve with them. Identification of skills gaps must focus on the skill sets themselves, not the occupations. SOCs and numerical analysis through occupation-based data have been the predominant methods for skills measurement, but that is not to say that they are adequate for the future. There is a need for co-ordinated and coherent workforce planning that looks at the skills rather than the individual occupations. (ASC et al., 2008, p. 15)

In other words, what the draft brownfield skills strategy is saying, given the above caveats, is that ensuring the effective and efficient reuse of brownfield land is not the preserve of a single occupation, or even a clearly identifiable group of occupations. Rather, it requires a wide range of skills that may be found across many different disciplines, including those for which brownfield land is not a primary consideration. The original scoping consultation, which preceded publication of the draft strategy, identified a total of 147 ‘brownfield occupations’, which are aggregated in Table 7.1. Table 7.1 is not intended to be an exhaustive list of occupations that could be expected to have an input into brownfield land reuse, and even a cursory glance in the context of topics covered in this book identifies at least two omissions – archaeological and ecological specialists. Nevertheless, the ASC’s work does serve to emphasise the complex nature of the skills required to tackle the blight, dereliction, physical and social aspects of reusing brownfield land. The

Table 7.1 Sample occupational areas providing the brownfield skills base (source: ASC et al., 2008, p. 16) Architects, urban designers and landscape architects, etc.

Finance managers

Conservation specialists

Housing, estate management and welfare officers

Construction and waste contractors

Inspectors and regulators

Construction workers (at all levels)

Neighbourhood and community development specialists

Contaminated land and remediation specialists

Planners, including transport

Contract managers

Programme and project managers, including risk management, etc.

Developers

Risk and feasibility assessors

Economic development and regeneration specialists

Scientific officers and scientists

Engineers, including civil, geo-environmental and transport, etc.

Surveyors

Environmental specialists

Sustainable development specialists

160

Land

draft skills strategy identified the potential for a shortfall of up to 75 per cent in respect of the necessary skills by 2012 (based on the government’s housing and brownfield land targets), with skills gaps predicted in all geographic regions, but especially in the South East, London, South West and East of England regions. The draft strategy noted that the ‘overwhelming majority of occupations involved in the reuse of brownfield land rely on the academic sector – specifically undergraduate and postgraduate university courses – for the primary career-route entry to the brownfield workforce’ (ASC et al, 2008, p. 19). This entry pool is shared and competed for by both disciplines and employers across brownfield regeneration and other industries, such as the energy industries. Apart from manual trades in the construction industry, very few of the people involved in brownfield land reuse enter via a work-based route. The draft strategy therefore suggested that there could be greater scope for entry through other routes, such as foundation degrees and 14–19 diplomas, apprenticeships and innovative employer-led partnerships with Higher Education institutions.

7.5

Summary Property development is not just about building new homes and places in which we can work or spend our leisure time. It is also about creating good environments, in which people feel safe and happy to be there. Recent research at the University of Manchester, funded by the Homes and Communities Agency, has examined the ‘social impact’ of reusing brownfield land. One of the many findings from the research was that the redevelopment of brownfield sites had the capacity to bring about ‘extensive processes of social change’ (Schulze-Baing and Syms, 2009, p. 23), with some new development taking place in parts of cities that previously had been ‘no-go’ areas. One disappointment observed by the researchers was that in only one of the projects studied had any ‘green’ infrastructure been provided – in a development in Leeds, where allotment gardens were being provided as part of the project. The case studies in this chapter have illustrated a variety of ways in which local communities, as individuals, businesses or other community-based organisations, can be actively involved in brownfield and similar regeneration projects. A diverse range of skills is required to bring such projects to fruition and, quite often, latent skills may be there in the community, unknown and unseen until a project is conceived.

7.6

Checklist

•

While conducting the initial site inspection and on subsequent visits, seek to ascertain whether the proposed development site is subject to any informal use by the community, whether authorised or not.


• • • •

161

Consider any issues that may be of importance to the community, such as loss of open space and increased traffic on the local road network, both during and after the development period. Check to see whether any concerns have been raised over the condition of the site and whether any actions have been taken to remedy community concerns. Ascertain whether any notices have been issued requiring the abatement of anti-social activities on the site. Seek to establish whether any formal or informal community groups are in existence, and whether they are likely to support or be hostile to any development proposals.

8 8.1

Contaminated Soil and Remediation Methods

Introduction A great deal has been written about the remediation methods available to treat soil contamination and to prepare affected sites for redevelopment, or for other forms of reuse. The purpose of this chapter is not to add significantly to the weight of technical literature, but rather to provide an overview of some of the available methods for those ‘non-technical’ professionals responsible for planning and managing redevelopment projects. Those wishing to obtain more technical information, especially independent reviews of the effectiveness of different methods, are directed to the website of Contaminated Land: Applications in real environments (CL:AIRE), the environmental charity sponsored by the Homes and Communities Agency and other organisations – see Box 8.1. Box 8.1 CL:AIRE (source CL:AIRE website, 2009) Contaminated Land: Applications in Real Environments (CL:AIRE) is an independent, not-for-profit organisation established in 1999 to stimulate the regeneration of contaminated land in the UK by raising awareness of, and confidence in, practical and sustainable remediation technologies. It is one of the leading organisations dealing with contaminated land, fulfilling a need for objective, scientifically robust appraisals of remediation technologies and effective methods for monitoring and investigating sites. CL:AIRE’s unique Technology and Research Group (TRG) draws on some of the foremost professionals and academics within the field to provide credible, third-party appraisals of remediation technologies. CL:AIRE is committed to increasing the uptake and development of innovative and practical solutions to the remediation of contaminated land. It focuses on the following core goals: • • • •

providing a unique system of independent appraisals for technologies, monitoring and site investigation techniques to give confidence to site owners and developers; disseminating scientifically credible and practical information on contaminated land and remediation to all interested parties; providing invaluable support to private and public bodies in accelerating the sustainable regeneration of contaminated land: and promoting business opportunities for the organisation’s partners, by linking problem holders with appropriate solutions.



163

The Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA) has also produced numerous research publications, including its 12-volume series Remedial Treatment for Contaminated Land (CIRIA, 1995–1998) which, although now somewhat dated, still provides useful information on remedial methods. CIRIA hosts a contaminated-land portal (contaminated-land.org) and a Brownfield Risk Management Forum, and has prepared guidance to safe working practices for contaminated sites (Steeds et al., 1996). The guide aims to inform all those involved about their statutory responsibilities for health, safety and environmental protection. It covers the potential range of contaminants and hazards and how to plan and manage the work accordingly. It describes safe working methods and the use of appropriate safety clothing and equipment. CIRIA has also published Brownfields: Managing the development of previously developed land – a client’s guide, which ‘is intended as an initial reference for clients involved with previously developed land’ (Laidler et al, 2002, p. 14). The guide is intended to help those responsible for brownfield sites to understand their own technical limitations and to identify the type(s) of outside assistance that may be required. It provides a ‘route map’, incorporating ‘summaries of the key issues of relevance to the development process’. Although still useful in terms of taking the reader through the process of brownfield redevelopment it is, inevitably, now somewhat out of date in terms of guidance on the legislation.

8.2

European Directives and UK legislation Directives from the European Commission have an important influence on UK environmental legislation, including the remediation of sites affected by contamination. Of particular importance in this context are the Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC), the revised version of which was signed in November 2008, and the Landfill Directive (1999/31/EC), which came into force in the EU on 16 July 1999. The new Waste Framework Directive, which came into force in December 2008, clarifies and rationalises EU legislation on waste. It replaced the previous Waste Framework Directive, the Hazardous Waste Directive and the Waste Oil Directive. The Directive repealed the earlier (2006) directive and was considered necessary ‘in order to clarify key concepts such as the definitions of waste, recovery and disposal, so as to strengthen the measures that must be taken in regard to waste prevention, to introduce an approach that takes into account the whole life cycle of products and materials and not only the waste phase, and to focus on reducing the environmental impacts of waste generation and waste management, thereby strengthening the economic value of waste. Furthermore, the recovery of waste and the use of recovered materials should be encouraged in order to conserve natural resources’ (OJEU, 2008, para 8). Article 40 – Transposition – of the new Directive requires member states to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 12 December 2010. It applies a new waste hierarchy and expands the ‘polluter pays’ principle by emphasising producer responsibility. More stringent waste reduction and waste management targets are imposed on

164

Land

member states and the Directive requires enhanced content in waste management plans. Paragraph 6 of the Waste Framework Directive states: ‘The first objective of any waste policy should be to minimise the negative effects of the generation and management of waste on human health and the environment. Waste policy should also aim at reducing the use of resources, and favour the practical application of the waste hierarchy’ (OJEU, 2008). The Framework goes on to restate the ‘polluter pays principle’ as ‘a guiding principle at European and international levels’, under which ‘the waste producer and the waste holder should manage the waste in a way that guarantees a high level of protection of the environment and human health’ (OJEU, 2008, para 26). In the context of development, whether of brownfield or greenfield sites, this applies both to soils that are contaminated and to excavated soils and ‘other naturally occurring materials’ that are used on sites other than those from which they are excavated (OJEU, 2008, para 11). The Landfill Directive requires that individual landfills accept only hazardous waste, non-hazardous waste or inert waste and was, for the most part, transposed into law in the UK in June 2002, under the Landfill (England and Wales) Regulations 2002, with subsequent amendments to the Regulations in 2004 and 2005. The Scottish Executive and the Northern Ireland Assembly have separate legislation to implement the Directive. The Directive was designed to:

• •

increase waste recycling and recovery reduce potentially polluting emissions from landfill. (Source: www.recycle-more.co.uk)

The Directive was required to be fully implemented by July 2009, and the last part to be implemented in England and Wales was the ban on untreated wastes and liquid wastes in October 2007. This made it illegal for a landfill operator to accept untreated or liquid waste, or hazardous waste with a total organic carbon (TOC) content of more than 6 per cent. The Environment Agency is the regulatory body responsible for implementing the Landfill Directive in England and Wales, which it does in a variety of ways, such as the permitting of waste management facilities and administration of the Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme – see www.environment-agency.gov.uk. The Agency regarded the changes to the regulations regarding liquid and hazardous wastes as ‘an opportunity for businesses to get better at reducing, sorting and recycling their waste’. Other European Directives that may impact on development projects include the Groundwater Directive (80/68/EEC) and Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. The Groundwater Directive aims to protect groundwater from pollution by controlling discharges and disposals of certain dangerous substances to groundwater. In the UK, the directive is implemented through the Groundwater Regulations 1998. Groundwater is protected under these Regulations by preventing or limiting the inputs of listed substances into groundwater. Substances controlled under these Regulations fall into two lists:

•

List 1 substances are the most toxic and must be prevented from entering groundwater. Substances in this list may be disposed of to the ground, under


•

165

a permit, but must not reach groundwater. They include pesticides, sheep dip, solvents, hydrocarbons, mercury, cadmium and cyanide. List 2 substances are less dangerous, and can be discharged to groundwater under a permit, but must not cause pollution. Examples include sewage, trade effluent and most wastes. Substances in this list include some heavy metals and ammonia (which is present in sewage effluent), phosphorus and its compounds.

The existing Groundwater Directive is to be repealed by the Water Framework Directive in 2013 – see www.environment-agency.gov.uk. The Habitats Directive protects over 1,000 animals and plant species and over 200 ‘habitat types’ (e.g. special types of forest, meadow, wetlands) of European importance and forms the ‘cornerstone’ of Europe’s conservation policy. Natura 2000 is an EU-wide network of nature protection areas established under the Habitats Directive, with the aim of assuring the long-term survival of Europe’s most valuable and threatened species and habitats. It comprises Special Areas of Conservation (SAC), designated by Member States under the Directive, and incorporates Special Protection Areas (SPAs) designated under the 1979 Birds Directive – see www.natura.org. There have also been proposals for a Soil Framework Directive, which was proposed on 22 September 2006 when the European Commission adopted the Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection; however, since then member states have been unable to reach agreement as to the scope of the proposed Directive. The overall objective of the Thematic Strategy was to ensure the protection and sustainable use of soil, based on the following guiding principles:

• •

preventing further soil degradation and preserving its functions; restoring degraded soils to a level of functionality consistent at least with current and intended use, thus also considering the cost implications of the restoration of soil: (www.defra.gov.uk/ENVIRONMENT/land/soil/europe/).

In the UK a public consultation exercise on the Commission’s proposals was held in mid-2007, to help inform the UK negotiating position. The outcome of the consultation process was a conclusion that the UK could not support the Directive as then drafted. The main stumbling block related to the fact that the draft Directive covered both soils in their natural state as well as those already affected by contamination and, in respect of the latter, the duties and responsibilities were considered to be too onerous. In the latter part of 2007, the Portuguese presidency of the EU made several attempts at redrafting the proposals in seeking to achieve consensus, but in spite of these efforts the compromises proposed were not acceptable to some countries. In consequence the UK joined France, Germany, Austria and the Netherlands in indicating that the changes made by the Portuguese did not go far enough to resolve a number of outstanding issues. Further efforts were then made by the French Government, during its presidency of the EU, and then by the Czech Government in early 2009. A revised draft prepared under the Czech presidency was due to have been considered by the EU Council at its meeting in June 2009,

166

Land

but it was opposed by the minority blocking group. At the time of writing, January 2010, it is understood that the Spanish presidency of the EU may be considering producing a further draft. Although European legislation is based on the ‘polluter pays’ principle, the contaminated-land legislative regime in the UK allows for the remediation responsibilities to be passed to a third party, such as a site purchaser intending to carry out a redevelopment. From the developer’s perspective this arrangement is often preferable, in that the site remediation works can be designed and executed to meet the requirements of the proposed development, and the developer can obtain direct satisfaction as to the quality of the work undertaken. Some major landowners of historically contaminated sites, most notably National Grid, insist on setting the specification for the remediation works themselves and on controlling the remediation works before handing over the site to the intending developer. In this way they can determine the appropriate thresholds for contaminant concentrations to remain in the ground, according to the proposed use, using precedents previously agreed with regulators. The primary contaminated land legislation in the UK is Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which was introduced retrospectively through section 57 of the Environment Act 1995. This legislation has been described and discussed at length elsewhere (including Syms, 2002, pp. 105–113, and Syms, 2004, pp. 20–25) and it is not intended to repeat what has been said previously. Nevertheless, it is important for the reader to appreciate a few salient points regarding the legislation. In the UK land is not legally classed as contaminated unless it is determined as being ‘land which appears to the local authority in whose area it is situated to be in such a condition, by reason of substances in, on or under the land, that –

• •

significant harm is being caused or there is a significant possibility of such harm being caused; or pollution of controlled waters is being, or is likely to be, caused. (Environmental Protection Act 1990, Part 2A)

In order that land may be determined as contaminated, it is necessary for the regulator, through a Conceptual Model for any or all of the contaminants, to demonstrate that there is an actual, or potential, causal link via a ‘pathway’ between a ‘contaminant’ source and a ‘receptor’. Receptors fall into four groups – human beings; protected or endangered ecological systems; property in the form of crops, livestock and domestic animals; and property in the form of buildings – and pathways can be created through the passage of human beings or animals from one site to another, through the air, the soil, or through ground or surface waters which, if ‘controlled waters’, are also receptors. With regard to most sites the local authority will be the regulator, but in some situations land may be classed as a ‘special site’, in which case the Environment Agency is the regulator. Ever since the legislation came into effect in 2000 the precise meaning of the words ‘significant possibility of significant harm’ – generally referred to as SPOSH – has been open to subjective interpretation by the regulators. Thus in February 2010 the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs announced a


167

decision to review the Statutory Guidance underpinning the contaminated land regime set out in Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. This decision followed work over the previous year to examine the implementation of the current regime, including input from a wide range of stakeholders. As the existing Statutory Guidance was first introduced in 2000, Defra felt that there was a strong case for considering where it could be amended to reflect experience in both delivery and scientific understanding. In view of the fact that the review may result in changes to the Statutory Guidance, publication of the previously announced best-practice guidance on contaminated land decision making was deferred until after any changes to the Statutory Guidance are made. The ‘polluter pays’ principle applies to the Part 2A legislation, except in situations where the polluter no longer exists or cannot be found, in which case responsibility falls to the current owner of the land – although in some situations hardship provisions may apply. However, as mentioned above, it is possible to transfer responsibilities, as follows:

•

•

Where payments have been made for the remediation to be carried out – this would involve the vendor of a site in making a payment that is sufficient to pay for the remediation. This may, for example, be through giving the developer a discount on the price to be paid for the land. Provided the payment or discount was sufficient and the arrangement is properly documented, this should be enough to exclude the vendor from future liability if the developer fails to carry out the work to a satisfactory standard. If, however, the person making the payment retains any control over the land, the liability would still remain. The land has been sold with information – this involves the vendor in making a full disclosure as to the contaminated state of the land at the date of sale and, once again, it has to be an ‘arm’s length’ transaction with no control being retained by the vendor.

This very brief overview of the contaminated-land legislation is intended only to alert the reader to its existence. The vast majority of previously developed sites that a planner or a development surveyor might encounter through the course of their career are unlikely to be contaminated in the legal sense. Nevertheless, they may contain contaminative substances which, while a site lies unused may not be migrating or causing any harm, BUT – changing the use of the site may introduce new receptors, and excavations or other works on the site may create new pathways. Then, suddenly, the site that has hitherto not been considered a problem may be full in the regulator’s spotlight. It is therefore always advisable to consult with the regulators and ascertain whether they have any concerns or plans to determine the site as contaminated land.

8.3

Removal and containment As will be appreciated from the previous section, the excavation of contaminated material and its removal to landfill, or ‘dig and dump’, has been the favoured

168

Land

option for many developers. This is because it is seen as providing certainty and is ‘not an excessively technical solution, is relatively quick and is generally cheaper than other options available’ (Syms and Knight, 2000, p. 19). In many respects the situation has not changed significantly since 2000, as developers still regard the removal of contaminants as providing ‘certainty’ in terms of preparing contaminated sites for redevelopment. Nevertheless, over the last decade there has been a growing awareness that, in other respects, this does not provide a good environmental option, as it primarily moves the contaminated materials from one location to another and resolution of the problem from one generation to the next, or to subsequent generations. The Landfill Directive has provided an impetus for developers to consider alternatives to ‘dig and dump’. This is due to the ending in July 2004 of the ‘codisposal’ of hazardous wastes with non-hazardous or inert wastes, which significantly reduced the number of landfill sites in the UK that are licensed to accept hazardous wastes. As a result, waste materials excavated on sites now have to undergo a much more rigorous process of identification and sorting on-site before being consigned to landfill. This is required in order to both separate hazardous materials from those that are non-hazardous or inert and to reduce the bulk of materials going to landfill. Another factor providing an impetus to consider alternative methods of site preparation is the removal of the statutory exemption from Landfill Tax for contaminated soils excavated in the course of land reclamation. The exemption had existed since the tax was first introduced in October 1996 and was withdrawn from 30 November 2008, when the tax rate was £32 per tonne, or £2.50 per tonne for inert materials. Exemption can still be claimed until 2012 in respect of long-term projects, where approval to the exemption had been approved prior to the November 2008 cut-off date. The tax exemption had provided a valuable benefit to developers, but in other respects it proved to be something of a disincentive to consider other methods of preparing land for redevelopment or reuse. Containment, or the on-site encapsulation of contaminated materials on the development site, is potentially a more environmentally friendly option than conventional ‘dig and dump’, in that it avoids off-site transport and disposal. It does, however, have its drawbacks, not least being the requirement for works to be licensed (in England and Wales) under the Environmental Permitting Regulations 2007, which came into force in April 2008, replacing the Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994. Work carried out under the regulations to incorporate areas of secure containment within development sites may also be subject to ongoing monitoring, extending well beyond completion of the development project itself. This may be unacceptable to developers, investors and end users alike. Under the former Waste Management Licensing regime it was possible to agree exemptions with the regulator: for example, to allow the use of lightly contaminated materials, with immobile contaminants such as some heavy metals, to raise land levels or provide sub-bases under roads or areas of hard-standing. At the time of writing, in early 2010, it seems that on-site containment is likely to be less acceptable, and more rigorously regulated, as the scope of these exemptions is


169

under review by Defra. The aim of the review is ‘to provide a more risk-based and proportionate approach to the regulation of waste recovery and disposal operations, complementing the new environmental permitting regime’ (Defra website: www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/waste-exemption-review). A public consultation on waste exemptions was held in 2008 as part of the review process. The high level of stakeholder engagement, both during and since the consultation, has led to an increased number of policy issues requiring resolution. The original intention had been to implement the revised regulations by October 2009, but this has been deferred until 2010 in order to allow the various issues to be resolved. Defra has, however, consulted on draft Environmental Permitting Guidance on exempt waste operations, the consultation period in respect of which closed in January 2010. The consultation covered the proposed revisions to the exemptions from environmental permitting and a draft set of revised regulations was included in Annex 2 of the consultation document; this is downloadable from the Defra website at www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/waste-exemption-reviewguidance/guidance.pdf.

8.4

In situ and ex situ treatments With the removal of the exemption from Landfill Tax and revisions to the exemptions from environmental permitting together having the effect of reducing the acceptability of both off-site disposal and on-site containment, other methods of preparing sites for reuse will start to prevail. The environmental charity CL:AIRE has monitored and evaluated a number of different processes, both in bench-scale and full-scale operations. CL:AIRE has also worked in conjunction with the EUfunded EuroDemo (European Co-ordination Action for Demonstration of Efficient Soil and Groundwater Remediation) project, to assess the sustainability of remediation technologies at ‘demonstration’ and ‘pilot’ stages of their development. EuroDemo defines these terms as follows: Demonstration:

Pilot:

A ‘substantiated’ example of a post-pilot implementation of a soil or groundwater remediation technology, intended not as a trial but to remediate a distinct area of contamination. Remediation methodology which is POST laboratory AND is being tested in the field environment. It is intended only to confirm the applicability of the methodology in the specific site conditions. (EuroDemo, 2007, p. 2)

For its 2007 report EuroDemo undertook a review of a sample of reported peer-reviewed remediation projects, so as to ‘give a reasonable impression of technology development across Europe’ (EuroDemo, 2007, p. 5). This review sampled projects from a number of different sources, including:

170

Land

• • • •

papers presented at the European Consoil conferences (1985–2005); the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation’s Committee on the Challenges of Modern Society (NATO CCMS) Pilot Study (1985–2003), entitled ‘Evaluation of Demonstration and Emerging Technologies for the Treatment and Clean Up of Contaminated Land and Groundwater’; CL:AIRE and its Dutch equivalent SKB (Stichting Kennisontwikkeling Kennisoverdracht Bodem); and NOBIS, a Dutch remediation programme (1995–1999) run in association with SKB, titled ‘Dutch Research Programme Biotechnological in situ Remediation’.

In total the review covered 157 Pilot projects and 97 Demonstration projects. By far the greatest number of projects reviewed were those involving Bioremediation (61 pilot and 29 demonstration projects), of which 34 pilot and 19 demonstration projects were in situ – i.e. the treatment was carried out without excavation of the soil – and the rest were ex situ, either on site or in other locations. The review of treatment projects was Europe-wide, but the Netherlands stood out as the state that had reported the most remediation demonstration and pilot projects, particularly bioremediation and especially in situ bioremediation. In a report complementing the 2007 ‘status report’, EuroDemo and TNO (a Netherlands-based independent research organisation) reviewed the Netherlands’ experience of in situ bioremediation technologies and considered future European challenges (Langenhoff, 2007). This report considered monitored and enhanced Natural Attenuation, together with a number of in situ technologies, including bio-augmentation, bio-sparging and bio-venting. The terms and differences between the technologies are briefly described in Table 8.1 below –

Table 8.1

In situ bio-remediation technologies (based on Langenhoff, 2007)

Technology

Brief description

Comment

Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA)

The most important process is microbial degradation, whereby contaminants are broken down into compounds such as water and carbon dioxide, and chloride in the case of chlorinated compounds.

MNA involves monitoring and evaluation, to ascertain when the migration of contaminants has stopped and acceptable concentration levels reached.

Enhanced Natural Attenuation

The addition of specific compounds to the soil or groundwater to create conditions favourable for the desired degradation of the contaminants. The added compounds are often dissolved in infiltrated water, for which extracted groundwater from the site can be used.

Used to stimulate degradation processes under both aerobic and anaerobic conditions.

Bio-augmentation

Introduction of micro organisms to a contaminated site, in both aerobic and anaerobic conditions, to augment those naturally occurring, to degrade the contaminants. The addition of nutrients, electron acceptors or electron donors might also be necessary.

A technique mainly used in the saturated zone of the soil. For the introduction of bacteria, it is imperative that permeable soil layers are present.


171

Table 8.1 Continued Technology

Brief description

Comment

Bio-sparging

Stimulating the natural in situ biodegradation of any aerobically degradable compounds in oil by injecting oxygen to soil microorganisms in the contaminated saturated soil zone.

The pollutants are degraded to harmless compounds within the soil, and extraction and treatment of air is not needed. Less effective in heterogeneous soils.

Bio-venting

Stimulating the natural in situ biodegradation of any aerobically degradable compounds in soil by providing oxygen and possibly heat to existing soil microorganisms. Oxygen is delivered to contaminated unsaturated soil zones by forced air movement through either injection or extraction of air to increase oxygen concentrations and stimulate biodegradation.

Frequently applied for the remediation of aerobically degradable organic compounds, such as fuel residuals, in the unsaturated zone of the soil. Effectiveness increases with soil permeability, less effective in heterogeneous soils.

Langenhoff concluded that, ‘If the environmental conditions are suitable, monitored natural attenuation is a responsible and cost-effective plume-management approach. Whether or not a biodegradation process has to be stimulated, the key issue remains to understand the biological and physical–chemical processes that take place in the soil aquifer’ (Langenhoff, 2007, p. 20). She also noted that some legal frameworks may not allow the introduction of substances, such as bacteria and nutrients, into the soil, thereby emphasising the importance of liaising closely with the relevant regulator(s) to ensure that the proposed remediation method(s) will be legally acceptable. Bioremediation technologies are not the only in situ methods available to intending developers, although they are probably the ones most widely used in Europe. Other forms of in situ method include thermal technologies, in respect of which EuroDemo noted, ‘Germany appears to be highly advanced at thermal remediation in terms of the number and sophistication of the in situ methods piloted’ (EuroDemo, 2007, p. 4). These methods included radio-frequency enhanced heating; steam stripping; in situ steam injection; and thermal pyrolysis. The terms and differences between the technologies are briefly described in Table 8.2 below. Many of the in situ techniques listed in Tables 8.1 and 8.2 are also suitable for the ex situ treatment of contaminants following excavation, to prepare them for reuse on the site from which they originated, or elsewhere, to reduce the concentration levels of the contaminants to render the soil suitable for off-site disposal. Biological ex situ treatments take the form of composting or land farming in windrows or biopiles, often with the addition of bacteria and nutrients to enhance the biological activity of the organisms naturally present in the soil. Of the thermal treatments listed above, steam stripping is suitable for ex situ use and thermal desorption, or the heating of excavated soils in sealed units to volatise the contaminants is another alternative. Other ex situ remediation technologies suitable

172

Land

Table 8.2 In situ thermal treatment technologies (sources: Davis, 1998; Roland et al., 2005; Syms, 1997) Technology

Brief description

Comment

Radio-frequency enhanced heating

A team from UFZ in Leipzig, Germany, in a long-term experiment, has demonstrated at a semi-technical scale the suitability of radio-wave heating for the optimisation of different processes for soil cleaning, namely biodegradation and thermodesorption.

The study concluded that thermallyenhanced soil vapour extraction using radio waves was especially applicable for treating highly contaminated soil areas, including condensed hydrocarbon phases and for in situ application near and under buildings and sealed areas.

Soil Vapour Extraction, or air-venting techniques

A series of pipes or wells is sunk into the contaminated ground and connected to vacuum pumps, which create negative pressure gradients to induce sub-surface air flows, thereby volatising the contaminants.

Can be used to treat volatile or semi-volatile organic compounds.

Steam stripping

The compounds are evaporated by the steam and the vapours produced are treated by downstream processes, such as steam condensation, waterimmiscible oil separation and activated carbon adsorption.

Steam or air stripping can be used to remove organic compounds from aqueous effluent streams.

Steam injection

Steam is injected into the ground around a pool of a volatile contaminant and either volatises or physically displaces the contaminant as vapour, nonaqueous liquid and water into a collection system, which then separates or distils the component parts.

It is important to characterise the site adequately to determine the horizontal and vertical distribution of the contaminant, and the preferred flow paths for the injected steam.

Thermal pyrolysis, or soil heating

This involves heating the ground, using radio or microwaves, or through conductivity, to stimulate the contaminants.

Used in conjunction with other techniques, such as soil vapour extraction, to collect the contaminants.

for use with contaminated soils include soil washing, and chemical treatments to neutralise or bind with the contaminants. None of the technologies described above is uniformly suitable to treat all types of contaminants, or for use with all types of soil. Most are more suited to treat petroleum hydrocarbons or other volatiles, but are less effective or completely ineffective with heavy metals. As noted in the comments columns, some of the treatments are best suited for use with relatively homogenous soils having a good degree of permeability. Of the ex situ treatments soil washing, for example, is best suited for use with coarse, granular soils, with low concentrations of fine materials such as silts. This is because contaminants tend to adhere to the finer particles of


173

soil, thereby reducing the efficiency of the process and lowering the volume of treated soil made suitable for reuse. It is often the case that more than one treatment method, or technology, will be required in order to treat contamination in order to make a site suitable for redevelopment or other forms of reuse. It is therefore important to carefully consider the characteristics of each site, and not simply opt for one particular approach because it has been used before. Contamination found on old industrial sites is often a complex mix of organic and inorganic compounds, heavy metals and minerals. They may be found in different media, such as natural soils (sand, clay, etc.) and in ‘made ground’ that has been filled with a wide variety of industrial and domestic wastes, many of which may not have been adequately recorded. In some situations certain types of remediation may be unacceptable on environmental grounds: for example, those that may cause noise, dust or odours, or involve large numbers of vehicle movements to and from the site. The project team must therefore develop a full understanding of the environs of the site and the available options for treatment.

8.5

The costs of dealing with contamination and dereliction The globalisation of manufacturing industries and resultant deindustrialisation, including the closure of many traditional industries, are generally regarded as being the primary causes of dereliction in the UK. and in many cases that is true. Coal mining, shipbuilding and the cotton industry, to give just three examples, have all declined to such an extent as to be shadows of their former selves, in terms of their contributions to both Gross Domestic Product and to employment. The downsizing and closure of these industries has had a direct effect in terms of sites being vacated or falling into disuse, leaving behind diverse problems of contamination and dereliction. They also have had indirect effects as associated industries and suppliers similarly close down or reduce the scale of their operations. Populations decrease in size, as those people that are fit and able-bodied relocate elsewhere for new employment opportunities, leaving behind the sick and infirm. Affected areas are thus left over-provided with schools and underprovided with hospitals and care facilities. All of these can result in further dereliction that extends well beyond the industry at the centre of change. Add to this other changing land-use requirements, including military training establishments, and it soon becomes apparent that the nature and scale of contamination and dereliction affecting previously developed land can be extremely varied. Given the diverse nature of brownfield sites and the range of remedial methods available, ‘Estimating the cost of preparing a brownfield site for reuse is a complex exercise and one that is fraught with uncertainties. Up-to-date and comprehensive information is essential, to reduce the uncertainty and risk of grossly underestimating the costs of remediation’ (Syms, 2008, p. 3). Recognising these issues and, from experience, appreciating that tackling the problems of dereliction can be almost as costly as treating contamination, in 2007 English Partnerships commissioned a team of specialist consultants to undertake research and prepare guidance for use by its regeneration teams and its partner organisations.

174

Land

Best Practice Note (BPN) 27 Contamination and Dereliction Remediation Costs, was published in February 2008 and updated earlier guidance, which dealt solely with contamination. Intended for use as part of a ‘due diligence’ process, the guidance used 2007 tender prices to update the cost estimates for the remediation of land affected by the presence of contaminative substances. It also expanded the earlier work to include the problems associated with dereliction, such as ‘having to deal with above and below ground demolitions, together with the stopping up and removal of redundant services. Land that has been subjected to works of this nature often requires excavated voids to be backfilled, with crushed arisings (brick and concrete) from the demolitions and/or the import of clean fill material, consolidation and grading/levelling to form development platforms’ (English Partnerships, 2008a, p. 4). The BPN considers contamination and dereliction treatment costs separately, but recognises that sites can be affected both by contamination and by extensive dereliction. So far as contamination is concerned, it takes as examples four different groups of historic use:

• • • •

Site Category A – industrial sites, colliery/mine spoil heaps, factories and ‘works’; Site Category B – garages, pithead sites, railways, textiles, timber-treatment and sewage works; Site Category C – metal workings, scrapyards and shipyards, paint and solvents; Site Category D – gas-, iron- and steelworks, chemical works, refineries, ship breaking and -building.

It uses four ‘proposed end uses’ for the purpose of estimating costs – public open space, residential, employment and mixed-use – and two environmental settings, relating to potential groundwater and surface water sensitivities: Low water risk and High water risk. These different scenarios are used to predict ranges of costs likely to be involved in site remediation. For example, it might cost £50,000 to £125,000 per hectare to remediate a Category A site for public open space use in a ‘low water risk’ location, but the cost to prepare a Category D site in a ‘high water risk’ location for the same use would be in the range of £525,000 to £1,200,000 per hectare. For residential development on a Category A site in a ‘low water risk’ location the costs estimates would range between £75,000 and £200,000 per hectare, while the same development on a Category D site in a ‘high water risk’ location would be estimated to cost £700,000 to £1,725,000 per hectare. A slightly different approach is adopted in respect of estimating the costs associated with tackling the problems of dereliction. For derelict sites, where there is little or no contamination, the historical uses of the site are of less interest and what is more important is the complexity of the above- and below-ground structures and services that have been left behind. Consideration of the costs of remediating dereliction is therefore on the basis of ‘Non-complex’ and ‘Complex’ sites. Size is also important, as many of the costs associated with dereliction remediation are classed as ‘fixed costs’ which, if considered on a per-hectare basis, might reduce in respect of larger sites. The costs estimates are therefore given separately for small sites with an average size of 2.5 hectares and large sites with an average size of 10


175

hectares. The same four end-use categories are employed as for the contamination remediation estimates: public open space, residential, employment and mixed use. As with the costs estimated for tackling contamination, the dereliction remediation costs are intended as ‘high level’ estimates for use in due diligence exercises. The variable costs on a small ‘Non-complex’ site to be prepared for public open space might range from £100,000 to £200,000 per hectare, plus a further £60,000 to £100,000 for fixed costs. For a large ‘Non-complex’ site to be used for public open space the variable costs might reduce to the range of £75,000 to £125,000 per hectare, plus £30,000 to £45,000 per hectare for fixed costs. In comparison, the variable costs estimate for a small ‘Complex’ site to be prepared for residential development would be in the range of £250,000 to £400,000, plus fixed costs of £120,000 to £190,000. From this limited comparison it can be seen that, while dereliction remediation costs may be generally lower than those for site decontamination, they are nevertheless significant costs to the development, which must be factored into the appraisal. The full BPN 27 can be obtained from the Homes and Communities website.

8.6

Tackling small sites It is an important characteristic of Britain’s industrial heritage that many manufacturing facilities occupied small sites in densely developed urban areas – see chapter 4 – and very often the original industrial activities have long since ceased, sometimes resulting in buildings being used for totally different functions from those for which they were designed. A consequence of this is that such premises become vacant, fall into dereliction and often have their buildings demolished, while next door there is a business that is still viable, even flourishing, providing employment and contributing to the local economy. The outcome is a plethora of small sites, in inner cities or other urban areas, which are often not suitable for redevelopment or reuse as individual sites; see Figure 8.1. Very often these sites are affected by contamination, but are too small for in situ remedial treatments to be cost-effective, or they lack the physical space to allow on-site ex situ treatments to be undertaken. ‘Dig and dump’ may therefore seem to be the only option, although environmentally it may not be the best solution, but with the reduced number of landfills licensed to receive hazardous waste and removal of the Landfill Tax exemption, it may prove prohibitively expensive. Recognising the problems associated with small brownfield sites, English Partnerships, in conjunction with CL:AIRE and National Grid, evolved the CLUSTER concept. This is based on the idea of taking two or more small sites, in relatively close geographic locations, and treating them as a single site for remediation purposes. CLUSTER was ‘developed as a means to tackle small sites by addressing the economic, regulatory, waste management licensing, environmental and social impacts generated by small site remediation’ (English Partnerships, 2006, p. B3). It works on the principle of selecting one of the cluster sites to form a ‘hub’ site, on which to set up soil treatment facilities. Contaminated soils are then excavated and transported from ‘source’ or ‘donor’ sites to the hub, where they are treated to make them fit for reuse. The treated soil, minus any

176

Vacant and derelict sites 2008 - categories A - D - Liverpool/Birkenhead Core Sefton

Land

Liverpool

Knowsley

Wirral

Legend vacant/derelict stock 2008 AREA

© Andreas Schulze Bäing, Centre for Urban Policy Studies, University of Manchester. This work is based on data provided through EDINA UKBORDERS with the support of the ESRC and JISC and uses boundary material which is copyright of the Crown.

10 m² - 330 m² 340 m² - 670 m² 0

0.3

0.6

1.2 km

680 m² - 1000 m² District boundaries

Figure 8.1 Vacant and derelict sites 2008, categories A–D, Liverpool/Birkenhead core (map prepared by ASB). Reproduced by permission of Dr Andreas Schulze Baing


177

contaminated residues, is then transported back to the same source site, or to other sites in the same cluster, for use as construction materials. The hub and donor sites thus form a cluster – see Figure 8.2.

Figure 8.2 Potential cluster sites (source: English Partnerships, Brownfield Guide, 2006 Annex B3, reproduced by permission of Homes and Communities Agency)

As can be appreciated, putting together a CLUSTER project can be quite a complex process, not least in terms of obtaining regulatory approvals and assessing the full environmental impacts. In order to fully understand the implications of a potential project, a ‘decision tree’ approach is used to assess the different environmental, economic, regulatory and social issues, and so determine the suitability of sites. The transport of contaminated materials by road is almost inevitable and may cause pressure on local road networks as soils are conveyed to the hub site and back to the various source sites. The local environmental impact has therefore to be weighed against the alternative of, say, transporting contaminated soils to a hazardous waste landfill that might be 100 miles or more from the site. Regulatory issues to be resolved might, for example, require decisions as to the ‘waste’ status of contaminated soil removed from one site, where a reduction in levels is required, to be treated and then used to fill voids in another site within the cluster. Consideration of the regulatory concerns may thus involve a thorough analysis of the alternatives and assessing which course of action would be preferable. Potential legal issues are myriad, especially if each of the hub and source sites is in a different ownership.

8.7

Land with no development value CLUSTER and similar projects are helping to find ways in which the problems of small brownfield sites can be resolved, but not all of these sites, or even many larger sites, are capable of being redeveloped to provide housing, employment or

178

Land

other uses of commercial value. The reasons for this are diverse, but perhaps the most common of all is market failure, where old industries have ceased to exist and, in many cases, a significant proportion of the population has moved away. One advantage of CLUSTER-type projects is that within a single cluster it is possible to include sites to be reclaimed for ‘hard’ end uses such as housing, as well as sites that will be landscaped and used for public open spaces. However, there may be little difference in the costs involved in treating the sites, regardless of their end uses, but there may be a very great gap between the post-treatment economic value of a development site and that of a public open space site, which may be seen as a liability with a negative value. This is where organisations such as the Land Restoration Trust (now the Land Trust) have important roles to play; see the case study in Box 8.2.

Box 8.2 Phoenix Park, Thurnscoe, South Yorkshire (source: Land Restoration Trust, 2009) Phoenix Park is a 67-hectare community woodland built on the contaminated site of a former colliery. The Land Restoration Trust provided a sustainable and cost-effective exit for the landowner, which secured the long-term future of the park, protected the money invested in restoring the land and provided added-value activities to a deprived community. When Hickleton Colliery closed in 1988 it had a massive impact on the local community of Thurnscoe. The town had grown in the late nineteenth century because of the colliery and for over 90 years depended on it for employment. When the colliery closed not only was there a loss of jobs, but it had also been at the heart of much of the town’s social activity as well. During the following years the derelict site remained a blot on the landscape, a constant reminder of the community’s misfortune and a negative first impression to any visitors. The site became part of the National Coalfields Programme in 1997and was remediated at a cost of over £4.2 million. Consultation with the local community resulted in the agreed uses for the site, with infrastructure for industrial/commercial development, 67 hectares of public open space, footpaths, community woodland and natural wildlife habitats. Phoenix Park has matured into a highly valued asset that has helped restore a sense of local pride, as well as contributing to the overall economic health and educational improvement of the area. In 2004 the park’s ownership was transferred to the Land Restoration Trust, along with an endowment, to cover the future management costs. Phoenix is managed on a day-to-day basis at a local level by community rangers from the Forestry Commission. The rangers work closely with all members of the community to deliver events and activities that benefit local people such as: • • •

Health Activities: Green Gyms, Buggy Fit for new mums, guided walks – over 2000 people have take part in such activities; Education Activities: recycling events, mini-beast hunts, pond dipping – over 3000 people have been on such visits; Social cohesion: working with children with behavioural difficulties and marginalised groups.


8.8

179

Summary The diverse range of available remediation methods and technologies available to the intending developers of contaminated or derelict sites varies considerably in terms of costs, the timescales involved and environmental impacts. It is unlikely that only one remediation solution will exist for a contaminated site. In practice there are likely to be several options available to the developer. These should all be carefully evaluated in terms of their economic and environmental impact, as well as their acceptability to the local community both during the development period and in the longer term. As a general rule, remediation techniques that contain operations within the site being treated, with only minimal transfer of wastes to other locations or landfills, are to be preferred to off-site forms of treatment or disposal that involve large numbers of vehicle movements. Nevertheless, the use of onsite technologies must be carefully evaluated, as some may result in unacceptable levels of CO2 emissions. European regulations are already playing a significant part in restricting some forms of remediation and are likely to increase. The costs involved in treating contaminated land are considerable and the cheapest option may not always produce the best result environmentally. Some derelict sites, with little or no contamination but affected by other problems, can cost as much to treat as some contaminated sites; and very small sites, especially those in densely developed urban areas, can be extremely expensive to prepare for use, regardless of whether one is dealing with contamination or dereliction. Not all previously developed sites will be suitable for development and many can provide far more value ecologically and environmentally. In some cases it may be sufficient simply to allow these sites to revert to nature, but in others comprehensive restoration may be needed, together with a robust management system to ensure the land will be properly managed for future generations and the environment.

8.9

Checklist

• • • •

Hold early talks with the local authority’s environmental health department and, where appropriate (especially if any ground or surface waters may be affected), with the Environment Agency, in order to assess their degree of interest in the site. Seek to cause as few problems as possible for local residents and businesses. Carefully evaluate remediation and site preparation options, remembering that very often more than one treatment method may be needed to arrive at the best and most environmentally acceptable solution. Consider any time constraints involved, as a more environmentally acceptable solution may be achieved if a longer timescale is allowed.

180

Land

• •

Protect the environment and remember that moving spoil from one site to another, without the appropriate licences, will probably breach Waste Management Regulations and could lead to stiff penalties. Assess at an early stage whether any of the land to be treated will not be available or suitable for redevelopment and determine how the land is to be managed in the future.

Part Three Development

9 9.1

Valuation of Damaged and Restored Land

Introduction For more than two decades, valuation academics and practitioners have been debating the thorny problem of how to value land that has been damaged by contamination or other forms of environmental impairment. At first sight it may seem an easy problem to resolve – simply value the land as if it has not been damaged and then deduct the costs of treating the damage. Indeed, this was the approach adopted by the Lands Tribunal in Proudco v. Department of Transport, cited by Tromans and Turrall-Clarke (1994, pp. 592–3). In that case, dating from a compulsory acquisition of part of the site of a former chemical works with a valuation date of November 1985, the approach of the Lands Tribunal was to value the freehold site by means of comparables and then to deduct the cost of decontamination, which was agreed between the parties at £9.9 million, inclusive of fees. This approach may be a sufficient basis upon which to assess the value of a site compulsorily acquired for a highway improvement scheme, where the decontamination costs (and related fees) are known and where, upon completion of the works, the road is to remain in public-sector ownership. However, it is of limited benefit in assessing the pre-remediation value of a site that, following remediation, is to be redeveloped for some domestic or commercial use, such as a privatesector residential development, an office park, a retail centre, or a mixed-use project involving housing and a mix of employment-related uses. It does not address a number of important ‘what if?’ questions that are pertinent in commercial situations, such as the examples given below:

• • • • • •

What if the site has to be valued before the remediation costs are known? What if it is not possible to fully treat or remove all of the contamination from the site? What if the contamination has migrated onto adjoining sites? What if contaminants are migrating from other sites onto the site being valued? What if the market – potential investors or end-users – is not prepared to accept the remediation methods used as being appropriate for the uses developed on the site? What if legislation changes and new regulations are introduced that render the remedial works inappropriate for the end uses, notwithstanding the fact that they were approved by regulators?


184

Development

In a later case, Haddon v. Black Country Development Corporation (1993), which involved the reworking of a landfill site to extract furnace ash for sale, the Lands Tribunal ruled that: ‘A prudent purchaser would include a contingency sum in case the clays on the site needed supplementing as to quality for the lining of the repositories; this provision should be about 20 per cent and there should be a further 10 per cent for further possible cost overruns or unforeseen circumstances’ (Tromans and Turrall-Clarke, 1994, p. 594). This approach, albeit seemingly fairly crude, highlighted the type of uncertainty involved and started to move towards the valuation methods subsequently adopted in North America and the United Kingdom. The issues associated with the valuation of land and premises affected by the presence of contamination have been considered in depth in Syms (1997) and the methods postulated by various practitioners and academics have been reviewed more recently by Syms and Weber (2003) and Syms (2004). It is not the aim of this chapter to simply repeat what is set out in those earlier works; instead, its purpose is to provide a brief overview of the different methods and then discuss the question of ‘stigma’, or any value impairment that exceeds the cost to correct the contamination itself. The chapter also considers the difficult issue of reporting contamination and other damage to property.

9.2

Valuation approaches Valuers have long recognised the need to allow for dilapidations and other impairments to real estate. In attempts to consolidate the literature, Kinnard and Beron (1987 and 1989) and Mundy (1988) compiled bibliographies of published articles, mainly from the United States of America. These were subsequently updated by Mundy (1991, 1992a) and by Kinnard (1995). In 1997 Syms explored the issues relating to contaminated land risks and their impacts on valuation in the United Kingdom, in his book Contaminated Land: The practice and economics of redevelopment (Syms, 1997). Subsequent research and publications throughout the 1990s and early 2000s expanded the research and knowledge base to include the United Kingdom, Europe and Australasia. In 2003 the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) published a review of international valuation methods employed to address the problems of impairment to value (Syms and Weber, 2003). Patchin considered the lack of marketability of properties affected by toxic contamination (Patchin, 1988, 1991a, 1991b) and stated that those properties ‘seriously affected by toxic contamination are usually unmarketable’, as the ‘costs of cleanup, together with liability to the public and stigma, often eliminate or significantly reduce a property’s value’ (Patchin, 1988, p. 7). He went on to say that ‘one of the most difficult concepts to understand when considering the effect of contamination on property value is that a physical cleanup does not usually eliminate the value loss resulting from stigma’ (Patchin, 1988, p. 12). After considering three different scenarios he concluded, ‘There is no quick fix to appraising contaminated property. The results are very dependent on individual circumstances. The extent and nature of the contamination are the crucial factors in estimating the after-value of contaminated property’ (Patchin, 1988, p. 16).


185

Patchin’s conclusion was extremely important, as it emphasised that each property affected by contamination, or other forms of environmental impairment, must be valued on an individual basis, as no two sets of circumstances are likely to be identical. This principle is now well recognised by practitioners involved with the valuation and redevelopment of impaired sites. Patchin then examined valuation approaches, including the application of different yield rates (capitalisation) according to whether the land was impaired or unimpaired, and concluded that the ‘major problem encountered in environmental analysis is the lack of available market data’ and ‘the sales that did not occur often are more important than the ones that did’ (Patchin, 1991b, p. 54). Taking this one stage further, he advanced the idea of using a ‘sales comparison’ approach, describing seven case studies in which agreed transactions had failed to be completed, or where they had been completed at reduced figures, owing to the presence of contamination (Patchin, 1994). Instead of the usual ‘comparables’ approach of comparing similar properties, Patchin’s comparisons were based on the nature and severity of the contamination and the resultant impact on property values. In 1996 Wilson (1996, p. 155) provided a number of useful definitions ‘in order that the valuer may acquire a fuller understanding of the issues related to the valuation of properties having environmental impairments’ – see Box 9.1:

Box 9.1 Wilson’s definitions of environmental impairment terms (after Wilson, 1996, pp. 155–6) Environmental Impairment: results when the presence of an environmental risk has a negative economic impact on property. Environmental Risk: results when different components interact in a manner that results in a substantive risk to human beings or sensitive environments. The components include a risk source, which is something that, if allowed to come into sufficient proximity to the target, may damage it; a primary control mechanism, which acts to prevent the risk source from entering the transport mechanisms and becoming an actual – as opposed to potential – threat to the target; transport/secondary control mechanisms, being the means by which a risk source may come into proximity to the target; and a target, which is an entity that may be damaged by the risk source. Contained Impairments: are environmental risks wholly contained within well-defined and easily recognized boundaries. Uncontained Impairment: where environmental risks are not contained within distinct, well-defined and easily identified boundaries; an example would be where a hazardous substance has contaminated soils and groundwater. Indirect Impairments: result when a target is in proximity to a known risk source, but no risk source is present on the property. Unimpaired Value: the value of the subject, assuming no environmental risks are present. Impaired Value: the value of the subject, given the presence of the environmental risk.

186

Development

Wilson commented that Patchin’s comparison approach ‘lacks detailed, property-specific quantitative information’ as ‘Detailed information is normally not available in typical case data to allow for a direct comparison of the case environmental impairment to the subject impairment’ (Wilson, 1996, p. 159). He acknowledged that ‘This is not the fault of the technique, but a common problem of the data available to the valuer’, stating that, ‘Owners are very reluctant to reveal detailed and specific information on their environmental condition.’ In many respects this still holds true today, as quite often property transactions involving contamination or other environmental damage are shrouded in secrecy, with confidentiality clauses in the contracts. Wilson’s alternative was an ‘engineering impaired value model’ or EIVM approach ‘as both a complement to the case-study approach and a quantitative business value impact assessment tool’. In his view this approach was more reliant on information obtainable from the subject property itself and less reliant on comparables or case studies, whilst recognising that the ‘presence of an environmental risk may also restrict the use of a property in terms of income generation’ and the ‘presence of an environmental risk may prompt debt and equity participants to change financing terms and conditions’ (Wilson, 1996, p. 161). Syms (1996) adapted Patchin’s ‘sales comparison’ approach for use in the United Kingdom by applying it within the context of the guidance laid down by the RICS in Guidance Note 2 (GN2) of the RICS Appraisal and Valuation Manual (RICS, 1995), which detailed eight heads of cost, as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

clean-up of onsite contamination; effective contamination control and management measures; redesign of production facilities; penalties and civil liabilities for non-compliance; indemnity insurance for the future; avoidance of migration of contamination to adjacent sites; control of migration from other sites; and regular monitoring of the site.

Of these heads of cost, Syms decided not to apply any cost figures to points 3 and 4 above, ‘because these should be regarded as immediate costs, not capable of deferment to the end of the economic life of the buildings’ (Syms, 1996, p. 40). The costs of redesigning production facilities and the payment of penalties, etc. may also be regarded as charges against the business operating on the property and not attaching to the land itself. Syms acknowledged ‘the difficulties involved in obtaining appropriate comparables each time a contaminated property is to be valued, or developed, and the need to identify the applicable determinants attributable to the valuation impairment’ (Syms, 1996, p. 45). At that time this was a particular problem in much of the United Kingdom, as property transaction data was confidential to the parties involved, with no public access to data held by the Land Registry; that is no longer the case. In an attempt to overcome the problem he subsequently proposed an alternative ‘risk assessment’ model for the assessment of stigma (Syms, 1997, pp. 197–203).


187

The ‘risk assessment’ model used a three-step approach, similar to Patchin’s ‘sales comparison’ method, as follows:

• • •

Step 1 – the preparation of a valuation of the property on the assumption that contamination does not exist, in order to deduce a base or ‘Unimpaired Value’; Step 2 – calculation of the expenditure required to treat the contaminated site, together with any associated costs [using the heads of cost in RICS GN2 but excluding heads 3 and 4], deferred as appropriate in order to arrive at ‘Impaired Value 1’; and Step 3 – the assessment of any stigma attaching to the past or present industrial use(s) of the site, using a risk assessment-based model, in order to arrive at ‘Impaired Value 2’.

Step 3 of the risk assessment method recognises that the different types of past use can result in differing degrees of contamination risks, both actual and perceived. These differences are reflected in the final step of arriving at Impaired Value 2; see Syms, 2004, p. 5 for the Index of Perceived Risk. Weber (1997) developed a method for ‘explicitly accounting for uncertainty in the valuation of contaminated property’. Acknowledging that previous authors had expressed concerns over the use of ‘comparable sales’ for the valuation of contaminated land, he proposed a land-development model ‘that would take into consideration the uncertainty of the remedial cost and prospective future value upon completion of the remedial effort’, suggesting that this ‘would provide a more reliable estimate of value’ (Weber, 1997, p. 383). His model made ‘use of Monte Carlo sampling to quantify the financial risk of successfully remediating a site’. Kennedy (1998) undertook a survey of practitioners in an attempt to identify the methods used to value contaminated land. The four methods considered were:

• • • •

Direct Capital Comparison Method (DCCM); Investment/Income Method (IIM); Profits Method (PM); and Residual Method (RM).

The most popular method was found to be IIM, and the least popular valuation method was the Profits Method. Chan (2001) provided a useful summary of the different types of valuation method that had been considered by previous commentators, both academics and practitioners in the United States and the United Kingdom, allocating them into the following categories: United States

• • • • • •

Environment Balance Sheet Method; Survey methods; Multiple regression analysis; Option Pricing Approach; Mortgage-Equity Analysis Approach; Monte Carlo-based Method.

188

Development

United Kingdom

• • •

Expected Utility Model; Normative Valuation Model; Explicit Appraisal Model.

Syms and Weber (2003), on behalf of the RICS Foundation, reviewed the different approaches to the valuation of land and property affected by contamination. They concluded that valuation professionals increasingly will be involved in far more rigorous assessments of risk, and that valuation models used for sites affected by the presence of contamination, whether severe or otherwise, will have to be able to demonstrate that they properly reflect the level of risk appropriate to the property being valued.

9.3

‘Stigma’ or taking account of ‘intangibles’ It is now generally recognised by valuers that a good site investigation is essential in order to estimate the likely cost of remediating, treating or containing contamination, or treating other forms of impairment. With modern techniques these costs can be estimated to a reasonable degree of accuracy, in compliance with environmental laws and regulations. Even the financial aspects of public and third-party liabilities can be determined with reasonable certainty. In spite of this, other impacts on value, such as the acceptability, or otherwise, of the remediation works to the market (whether for occupation or investment), are still difficult to determine. Quantifying these intangibles is recognised by most commentators on the subject of valuing impaired real estate as the most inherently problematic aspect of producing valuations, as they represent a diminution in value in excess of the costs involved in treating any physical problems – the ‘stigma’ effect. One of the earliest commentators, Patchin (1988) attributed stigma to four groups of ‘fear factors’ – see Box 9.2:

Box 9.2 Patchin’s ‘Fear factors’ (based on Patchin, 1991a, pp. 168–70) •

•

•

•

Fear of hidden clean-up costs – including the potential lack of quantification of remediation costs prior to treatment and, in the mind of a potential buyer, concerns that not all contamination has been removed or treated, requiring further treatment at a later date; The trouble factor – even when the cleanup costs are capable of being quantified, a buyer may require a further discount to compensate for the trouble involved in carrying out the work; Fear of public liability – in some cases stigma has little relationship to clean-up costs as, even when the property has been cleaned up to the extent allowed by present-day technology, there may still be concerns over possible future liabilities; Lack of mortgageability – one of the most frequent causes of stigma-related value loss, potentially reducing the price obtainable and also increasing the time needed to effect a sale.


189

Mundy (1992b) referred to prior literature as dealing ‘with quantifying variables on which data are relatively easy to obtain, such as the cost to remove or encapsulate asbestos and the cost to clean soil contaminated by a leaking underground storage tank’ (Mundy, 1992b, p. 7). He stated that, using these approaches, the ‘literature indicates that often a mathematically derived conclusion regarding an effect may not correspond with the opinion of the public at large. In other words, real risk may not be synonymous with perceived risk’. He identified seven criteria that may be used to evaluate and determine the degree of stigma – see Box 9.3:

Box 9.3 Mundy’s criteria to evaluate and determine stigma (after Mundy, 1992b, pp. 9–10) 1. Disruption – Would the contamination alter a given person’s normal, day-to-day behaviour? 2. Concealability – Is the contamination visible or detectable by other senses? 3. Aesthetic effect – To what extent does the contamination visibly alter the environment? 4. Responsibility – To what extent was an individual or an entity responsible for the contamination? 5. Prognosis – The prognosis for contaminated property contains two elements: a) the severity of the contamination and b) the persistence of the contamination. 6. Degree of peril – Peril is multidimensional: a contamination event can affect the health of humans, wildlife and fauna. 7. Level of fear – Is our fear now greater than it was before?

In the context of contaminated land, Mundy contended that, ‘The level of uncertainty or risk associated with a hazard or contamination is influenced by the amount of knowledge people have about it,’ and, ‘The level of risk associated with contamination varies according to the level of familiarity with the particular contamination’ (Mundy, 1992b, p. 11). He expressed the view that ‘When a contamination problem becomes known, there is generally a period of heightened uncertainty during which the magnitude and character of the problem are researched and documented’ (Mundy, 1992b, p. 10). He goes on to say that during this period, ‘Risk is much greater, therefore discounts are greater’ but, ‘As research progresses, and a better understanding of the magnitude, character, and possible solutions to the problem is reached, uncertainty decreases.’ He suggests that, as more becomes known about the problem, ‘The market’s ability to predict the possible value effects and the probability of whether those effects will be realized become more certain.’ In a further paper, Mundy (1992c) theorised about how the marketability and related values might change over time, according to the level of knowledge about the contamination problems. Figure 9.1 develops Mundy’s work further, showing the time-related marketability impact and the costs to correct the actual, or perceived, problem. In terms of the costs to correct, two scenarios are shown, both of which relate to properties in close proximity to the source of the contamination

190

Development

Impact on value and costs to correct of properties in close proximity to a contamination source (real £s) 300000

Value - £s

250000

Months A

J

200000 150000

B

E F

H

G

Average value of properties in the neighbourhood

I

Cumulative costs to correct scenario A, contamination found

CD

100000 50000 0

K

L M

N

O

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 Time - months

P

Cumulative costs to correct scenario B, no contamination found Stigma - scenario A Value impact

Figure 9.1 Further development of Mundy’s ‘Changes in the Value of Contaminated Real estate over Time’. The hatched area shows changing value impact attributable to stigma. Notes: The value related changes in knowledge and as remediation progresses are shown as follows: A–B B–C C–D D–E E–F F–G G–H H–I I–J K–L L–M M–N N–O M–P

Sudden drop in values as the problem becomes public, down to a level at which speculators are prepared to buy in expectation of profit. Continuing fall in values during period of uncertainty and before any action taken. Values stabilise as site investigation work is undertaken. Values start to rise as reports and remediation strategy are disseminated. Period of inactivity pending resolution of liabilities and responsibilities prior to remediation – could be quite lengthy if liability is disputed. Values start to rise as remedial work is undertaken. Values level out post-remediation and whilst the outcome of the work is monitored. Further increase in values after monitoring and ‘signing-off’ by regulatory authorities. Gradual increase in values as sales prices return to normal market levels. Cumulative cost of site investigation. Period of nil expenditure whilst site investigation reports are considered by regulators. Cumulative cost of remediation work – scenario A. Post-remediation monitoring – scenario A. Monitoring of uncontaminated properties, during and post-remediation of affected properties.

but not containing the source. Under both scenarios the properties are investigated to ascertain whether they are affected by contaminant migration. The property in scenario A is found to be contaminated, but not catastrophically so, and is capable of being remediated at reasonable cost. The property in scenario B is found to be not contaminated but, given its proximity to contaminated properties, it is deemed appropriate to continue monitoring the situation until such time as the ‘all-clear’ is given. The hatched area in Figure 9.1 represents how changes over time, in terms of knowledge regarding the degree of contamination and the progress of remediation works, effect changes in the level of reduced value attributable to ‘stigma’. The term ‘value’ is used here but, of course, changes and trends can be proven only from actual prices paid in the open market. A side effect of this type of


191

situation is that the volume of transactions may be significantly reduced as some owners decide to adopt a ‘wait and see’ type of response. There would still be some market activity, with selling prices depressed to levels at which speculators judge they can make profits. The ‘costs’ shown in Figure 9.1 are intended to reflect the direct, property-related costs involved in this type of situation. In addition, property owners may be faced with the costs of temporary relocation, while investigative and remedial works are carried out, plus other types of ‘disturbance’related costs. These might, for example, include the increased costs of travelling to work which, although only short-term, may soon mount up. The costs also do not reflect any legal fees that may be payable or any penalties, or compensation that may be receivable. Wilson (1996) also observed that the impacts on value of stigma and environmental impairments in general ‘are highly time-dependent’ and that stigma may have three distinct time-dependent phases or parts, which he described as: 1. ‘post-remediation stigma or the impact on value after remediation has been completed’. This impact may result from such factors as continuing uncertainty, but ‘may dissipate to an undetectable level over time’. 2. ‘pre-remediation stigma, or the influence of the post-remediation stigma plus the impact of risks associated with the possible difference between estimated and actual costs plus other market factors’. 3. ‘during-remediation stigma, an interim or transition phase stigma impact that is generally less than pre-remediation stigma impacts, but more than postremediation stigma impacts’. (Wilson, 1996, p. 166) The present author largely agrees with Wilson’s description of three ‘timedependent’ phases of stigma, but would add a fourth category of stigma, which might be called the ‘post-catastrophic event’ phase, or ‘proximity’ stigma. This would apply in the period after a single event has occurred, such as an explosion or a major chemical spill, or in the period immediately after which it has become known that a long-running polluting activity may have caused harm to neighbouring properties. In both cases the properties being valued would not be those on which the polluting activities have taken place and, indeed, there may not be any evidence that the properties have suffered any form of environmental damage. Nevertheless, the public knowledge of the pollution incident or the long-term polluting activity is likely to be sufficient to affect the marketability of the properties. In an extreme case market activity in the area may be totally halted, as all concerned take time to assess the full extent of the impacts. In less extreme situations the number of potential purchasers or tenants prepared to acquire properties in the area may be significantly reduced, creating a buyer’s market. Either way there will be an impact, of differing severity, on the sales prices or rents achieved and, as these form the comparables upon which valuations are based, values in the area will decline, regardless of whether individual properties are actually contaminated. This is otherwise known as proximity impairments. Both Wilson (1996) and Jackson (2000) considered the question of proximity impairments, which Wilson regarded as ‘usually the most difficult analytical

192

Development

situation of all and one in which popular perceptions are frequently not supported by the data’. He stated that an ‘analysis of cases involving indirect impairments indicates the following:

• • •

The impairments are generally not as great as commonly believed. The impairments are generally more geographically restricted than commonly believed. The actual degree of the impairment is much more difficult to establish quantitatively due to limitations in the data and the analytical techniques usually employed.’ (Wilson, 1996 p. 166)

He added, however, ‘None of the foregoing implies that indirect impairments do not occur. They do, and with some frequency.’ Jackson’s view was that the valuation of contaminated and previously contaminated properties will have a different focus, depending on the date of value, if adverse impacts due to contamination are known to dissipate subsequent to remediation (Jackson, 2000; Syms, 2004, p. 53). The fourth definition of stigma, in addition to the three identified by Wilson (above), is therefore: Proximity stigma: any price adjustment attributable to the location of a potentially contaminative activity close to the subject property, or the presence of known contamination on adjoining land. This is the most difficult type of stigma to deal with as it is outside the control of the landowner, who may have to rely on a regulator to take action against the polluter, or embark upon a costly civil action in tort. (Syms, 2004, p. 54, after Jackson, 2000) Bartke and Schwarze (2009), in a paper presented at the 16th Annual European Real Estate Society Conference in Stockholm in June 2009, reviewed existing literature and professional guidance relating to the valuation of derelict land affected by actual or potential contamination from previous uses. They concluded that ‘Practice-oriented studies, and valuations in Germany and elsewhere, pay much too little attention to risks resulting from previous use, even though international appraisal standards invariably demand that all value-related information and properties of a site should be considered when establishing market value’ (Bartke and Schwarze, 2009, p. 1). From a study of the literature and guidance they determined that there are ‘a variety of determinants leading to [value] markdowns, which can be stylized to fit into four categories’ (Bartke and Schwarze, 2009, p. 5). These four categories may be summarised as follows: 1. Risk of liability claims – including claims for damages under civil laws as well as penalties and costs under public laws. They suggest that when contamination is merely suspected, there is a large-scale risk of liability claims. After treatment and when private claims have been met the markdown goes towards zero, although there may still be a residual risk of subsequent and unexpected claims – for instance, if stricter legislation is introduced as a result of novel scientific insights. 2. Investment risks – or ‘cost’ risks – where the intended use of a site will normally cause extra costs: for example, in respect of the disposal of wastes in


193

the form of polluted but non-hazardous materials arising from excavations on the site. There may also be use-related additional costs, for example when preparing sites for sensitive uses such as playgrounds. 3. Usability risks – where remediation costs are out of proportion, with regulatory authorities imposing additional precautionary measures and restrictions, including limitations as to use. 4. Stigma and marketability – the ‘battered’ image that may persist even after all regulatory authority requirements and private claims have been met. This takes the form of potential buyers being psychologically biased against sites polluted by previous uses. They may also be fearful of hidden risks, even without any objective or legal justification. (after Bartke and Schwarze, 2009, pp. 5–6) Bartke and Schwarze emphasise that, to understand and economically quantify these uncertainties affecting value, it has to be remembered that they are ‘risks’, i.e. ‘factors that can be determined (and sometimes have to be subjectively estimated) only within upper and lower limits (cost margins)’, or predicted in a probability distribution. They introduce the concept of ‘Mercantile Value Reduction’ (MVR) to take account of the uncertainties at the early-planning, development and post-development stages. They state that the quantum of MVR depends on levels of experience and information concerning rehabilitation and treatment costs, shrinking as these levels rise but never going below zero, because psychological effects of stigma from the history of contamination survive during and after treatment. Similar to Mundy (1992c), they suggest that, ‘On principle, levels of information and experience rise as rehabilitation and reuse proceed, so that there is less uncertainty regarding value reduction from undetermined costs’ (Bartke and Schwarze, 2009, p. 7). The funnel diagram in Figure 9.2 shows the elements of MVR as a function of time and respective information levels, with the funnel narrowing as certainty grows in defining risk components. Bartke and Schwarze also proposed a ‘risk scoring’ method for assessing the MVR, noting that, ‘So far, the literature on valuation has not come up with simple methods of quantifying market-oriented value deductions for risks or stigma effects’ (2009, p. 11). Instead of the conventional valuation approach, they express the opinion that the separate determination of a market-related reduction at the end of an appraisal ‘is better suited for the transparent quantification of risks from sites polluted in earlier use’. Based on a survey of 89 experienced appraisers (valuers) they concluded that the factors to be taken into account in ‘risk scoring’ may be summarised in three groups:

• • •

local factors; informational factors (time); and risk-passing-on factors.

With regard to the ‘local factors’, the experts polled expressed their opinions as to the likely effect on the amount of market-value reduction, as listed below:

194

Development

Small effect

• • • • •

poor demarcation of (supposed) contamination; visible safeguards such as barriers and fences; unclean look of the property; property listed in an official register of contaminated sites; core of (potential) contamination located on the edge of the property.

Moderate effect

• • • • • •

large size of (supposed) contaminated area relative to total area (defined as >15 per cent of the total site); known (rehabilitation) requirements of authorities; existing and legally binding public rehabilitation contract; long period of the property being unused (defined as >5 years); property located adjacent to residential area; public discussion about the development of the property.

Strong effect

• •

great media attention in respect of the contamination risk; groundwater contamination confirmed or very likely. (based on Bartke and Schwarze, 2009, pp. 12–13)

Uncertain Costs

Upper boundary of costs

Stigma

Cost risks

Remediation Related costs

Usability risk Liability risks

public private Lower Boundary of costs

No/ Historical investigation

Orientating Detailed Remedial Remediation Remediation Subsequent investigation investigation investigation plan completed use

Time

Figure 9.2 Time components of MVR and demarcation from MVR (source: Bartke and Schwarze, 2009, p. 8, Fig. 2)


195

The authors suggest that expert appraisers should score the local conditions against the average of conditions prevailing for sites contaminated from earlier uses and the resultant scores should be employed in the MVR model; see Figure 9.3, with adjustments made for the time and risk-passing dimensions. They stress, however, that the actual amount of risk-related reduction will depend on the type and regional location of the property.

Risk Scoring Method

Risk Scoring Mercantile Value Reduction Definition of MVR

0.

Definition of MVR

1.

Dimension: Locality (L) Risk scoring of plot features

L

2.

Dimension: Time (T) Adjustment for informational risk

T

3.

Dimension: Risk passing (R) Adjustment for market conditions, subsidies, indemnities, insurance Appraisal of adjusted MVR for the local property

R

Ajusted MVR

Figure 9.3 Risk-scoring concept to determine MVR specific to the site being appraised (source: Bartke and Schwarze, 2009, p. 12, Fig. 4)

In conclusion, the authors suggest that risk scoring and the algorithm presented in their paper ‘are one way of identifying market-perceived risks for sites polluted from earlier use in a transparent and comprehensible procedure’ (Bartke and Schwarze, 2009, p. 15).

9.4

Applying valuation theories in practice Much of the earlier work was theoretical in nature, or took the form of guidance from professional bodies. Some of the published work aimed at the consolidation of knowledge with regard to the different methods that were being, or could be, applied in practice, but very little detailed research has been published with regard to the practical verification of value impacts attributable to contamination or other environmental impairments. The two examples described below are worthy of further consideration. Kinnard et al. (1995) examined the extent to which impacts on residential property values differed over time and also in relation to distance from the source of the contamination. Their case study involved a former aluminium smelter in the state of Washington, USA. From 1890 to 1985, the property was used to smelt and refine lead and copper. This resulted in the release of metals into the soil, the

196

Development

air, the bay, and ground water. In 1983 the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) added the site to its list of hazardous waste sites needing cleanup, and in 1984 ‘notified the smelter operator of its potential liability for contamination of the soil in the residential areas surrounding the smelter’ (Kinnard et al., 1995, p. 3). The research undertaken by Kinnard and his team was designed ‘to identify whether discernible differences between sales prices, levels of sales activity, or trends in levels of sales prices in properties in the Class Area, and levels of sales prices, levels of sales, or trends in prices for properties located in a more distant Control Area, had occurred by the third quarter of 1994’ (Kinnard et al., 1995, p. 4). They were able to obtain sales transactions data on every single-family residential and duplex property sale recorded from January 1, 1978 to September 1994, in both the Class Area and the Control Area. After screening the raw data files for non-conformity ‘the Useable Data Set totalled 12,536 sales transactions’, of which ‘6,377 sales [were] in the Class Area, and 6,159 sales in the Control Area over the 1978–1994 study period’ (Kinnard et al., 1995, p. 6). In order to determine whether distance from the source of contamination had any significance, Distance Zones were established within the Class Area, as follows: ‘Zone A Zone B Zone C Zone D

Up to 0.500 miles from the smelter stack 0.501 to 1.000 miles from the smelter stack 1.001 to 1.500 miles from the smelter stack 1.501 to 2.000 miles from the smelter stack.

The Control Area properties were all more than 2 miles from the smelter stack. Zones A, B, C and D constituted the total class area, while Zones A and B together approximated the EPA study area’ (Kinnard et al., 1995, p. 5). Upon completion of the analysis, the researchers arrived at the following conclusions: 1. Based on all the evidence available, it was clear that any value impact associated with proximity to the site of the smelter extended no more than one mile. Beyond that distance, there [was] no evidence of any negative impact on either Sales Price or Sales Price per Square Foot of Living Area. 2. Within one mile of the smelter stack, however, it was clear that the closer a property’s Distance Zone was to the site of the smelter stack, the lower the Sales Price or Sales Price per Square Foot was likely to be. In other words, the closer the Distance Zone of a property was to the site of the smelter stack, the greater was any negative price effect. They qualified this conclusion by observing, ‘It is quite clear from an analysis of data for the late 1970s and early 1980s that this same pattern of price effects associated with proximity to the site of the smelter stack existed prior to any widespread publicity or public knowledge about the soil contamination identified within the EPA Study Area, and alleged within the entire Class Area.’ It was therefore difficult to conclude ‘that knowledge and fear of the on-site soil contamination is the sole cause of such negative impacts … Nevertheless, it is quite clear that there is some impact associated with intensive publicity


197

and concomitant public knowledge of on-site contamination’ (Kinnard et al., 1995, p. 10). 3. Rates of increase (trends) in both total Sales Price and Sales Price per Square Foot of Living Area were lower for residential properties close to the identified source of soil contamination than those for otherwise similar properties more distant from that source. They also noted it would appear ‘that Sales Price per Square Foot is a more sensitive measure of external impacts on price, especially over time’ (Kinnard et al., 1995, p. 10). 4. The research found that sales volumes of single-family residential properties close to the identified source of soil contamination declined once the extent and source of the contamination became widely known and publicised. 5. Finally, the researchers concluded that ‘Something of substantial character occurred in the residential market represented by the Class Area and the Control Area during 1993–1994. The combination of decreases in sales volume and price levels within the Class Area, relative to the levels experienced in the Control Area, is associated with a dramatic increase in publicity about the soil contamination within the EPA Study Area, the EPA-ordered remediation program within the EPA Study Area, and the filing of the Class Action suit. Moreover, public awareness of the remediation program, at least, was heightened by knowledge and observation of intense remediation activity being conducted within the EPA Study Area from April 1994 onward’ (Kinnard et al., 1995, p. 11). Neupane and Gustavson (2008) adopted a similar approach to the Kinnard team when examining the externality effects associated with proximity to a contaminated site, specifically the Sydney Tar Ponds and Coke Ovens sites in Nova Scotia, Canada. These are abandoned industrial properties located within the urban boundaries of the city of Sydney, on ‘a tidal estuary that received discharges from upstream industrial activities associated with approximately 90 years of steel making, including coke production’ (Neupane and Gustavson, 2008, p. 1212). The spatial boundaries for the study were defined as being the residential property markets in the urban area of Sydney, including properties close to the contaminated sites and those further away, to assess the degree to which they might have been affected. The researchers hypothesised that the existence of the Tar Ponds and the Coke Ovens had adversely affected residential property values and that, ‘The properties that are closer in proximity have been more adversely affected than properties located further away’ (Neupane and Gustavson, 2008. p. 1214). The researchers used a hedonic pricing model, which assumed that the prices of residential properties are determined by the buyer’s opinion as to the property’s characteristics. Sales data for the period 1989 to August 2005 were obtained from the multiple listing (MLS) data held by the Nova Scotia Association of Realtors(R). After data cleaning and the removal of some outliers (with abnormally high or low prices) a final sample of 2,212 transactions was obtained. Data for the transactions sample was entered into the model. As well as sales price data, this included information such as type of house (number of floors), age of

198

Development

dwelling, size of the plot, size of the main living area, number of bedrooms, number of bathrooms and number of garages. Environment-related data, in the form of the minimum distance to the Tar Ponds or the Coke Ovens site, was also entered into the model. The theoretical framework for the hedonic pricing model and the model specification, including the analytical options considered, are set out in the paper (Neupane and Gustavson, 2008, pp. 1215–17), which discusses the factors considered. The results obtained from the model explained about 50 per cent of the variance in residential property prices, with a majority of the variables being highly significant, including the distance measure. This confirmed the researchers’ expectations regarding the effect of the Tar Ponds and Coke Ovens on nearby property values. The age variable was found to be negative, indicating that older homes were less expensive than newer ones. Modelling of the transaction data led to the conclusion that the main impact on values was highly localised, to dwellings within the first 100 metres from the boundaries of the Tar Ponds and Coke Ovens; beyond that the value impact declined significantly – see Table 9.1. The researchers also concluded that the ‘measured loss in property values due to proximity to the Tar Ponds and Coke Ovens cannot be attributed solely to the presence of contamination’ (Neupane and Gustavson, 2008, p. 1217). Other site characteristics, such as negative visual aesthetics and the disused state of the sites during much of the period covered by the transaction data (the Coke Ovens closed in 1988 and the steel plant ceased operations in 2001), also contributed to the value impacts.

Table 9.1 Average loss of residential property value by distance from Sydney Tar Ponds and Coke Ovens, 1989–2005 (source: Neupane and Gustavson, 2007, p. 1218, Table 3) Minimum distance from the Tar Ponds and Coke Ovens sites 1000m

10,013

1,452

708

330

107

26

40

78

472

1,596

12.39

1.79

0.88

0.41

0.15

The overall conclusion from the study was that the presence of the Sydney Tar Ponds and Coke Ovens had a significant negative effect on the value of residential property, albeit largely localised to within a few hundred metres of the sites. The study also demonstrated that, ‘Results can differ significantly between sites [individual residential properties], likely due to differences in local property markets, social values and perceived risks’ (Neupane and Gustavson, 2008, pp. 1219–20).


9.5

199

Reporting contamination and other damage to land Appreciating the differing views and the diverse methods that have been adopted, over a period in excess of two decades, it is quite easy to understand why developers, landowners and professional advisers are often very wary when it comes to reporting contamination and other forms of environmental damage. Developers, especially house builders, have often been reluctant to openly divulge information about the previous uses of sites and the nature of any work undertaken to investigate or remediate contamination. This author has encountered three very different responses when enquiring about site histories and contamination on housing developments:

• • •

The first response might simply be described as ‘I know nothing,’ where site sales staff have not received any briefing regarding the site history and, when pressed, can respond only by saying, ‘That is something your solicitor will have to take up with our legal department, if you decide to purchase.’ The second response produced a wealth of technical detail, when the sales representative referred the enquiry to the site manager, who produced ‘before’ and ‘after’ plans of the remediation works, and full site-investigation and monitoring reports. The third response did not even require the enquiry to be made, as the display in the site sales office included ‘before’ photographs, a brief non-technical explanation of the work undertaken and photographs taken during the site preparation works.

Three very different approaches to communicating information and, while some developers may feel that the second and third are going too far in making information available, the first approach is certainly not one to be recommended. Landowners, including companies, are often very reluctant to fully disclose or report upon the condition of land in their ownership, in case the full disclosure of future environmental liabilities may have an adverse effect on their balance sheet and, ultimately, the value of their shares. This is understandable and if the property is still in use, making a contribution to the economic well-being of the enterprise without any worsening of the environmental impairment, it may even be an acceptable approach. Nevertheless, it is certainly no longer acceptable for valuers to seek to avoid the problem of accounting for any form of environmental impairment when preparing their valuations. Any report containing a caveat to the effect that contamination or other impairments has been ignored, even though there is a probability from the site’s history that a problem may exist, should be treated with suspicion. Equally, a valuation report that describes the existence, or likelihood, of contamination, should do so objectively. Few valuers are appropriately qualified or experienced enough to comment as to the adequacy, or otherwise, of reports prepared by environmental specialists, but they should be able to review them and, where appropriate, raise relevant questions – see Chapter 4 and RICS guidance note Contamination, the Environment and Sustainability: Their implications for chartered surveyors and their clients (RICS, 2010b).

200

Development

Like all professions, valuers and environmental consultants have their own vocabularies, and use terms in certain ways that may not always be fully appreciated by those in other professions. There is therefore a very strong argument to be made for those professionals involved with the investigation and valuation of land affected by any form of environmental impairment to be required to prepare short summaries of their reports. These should be, say, no more than four pages in length, setting out the history of the site, problems of contaminants encountered, the work undertaken (if any) and any requirements as to postdevelopment monitoring that may be needed.

9.6

Summary The complexities associated with the valuation of land have been well recognised and debated for more than two decades. As can be seen from the brief outline given in this chapter, many different valuation methods exist and it is not the purpose of this author to recommend one approach over another. It is up to the valuer concerned to decide which method is most appropriate and, indeed, he or she may decide to use two or more methods and then decide which one gives the most sensible answer. For the lay reader of the valuation report it is important that the rationale for selecting the method used is clearly stated. The process of undertaking the valuation should be set out step by step and details should be included as to any comparable evidence used in arriving at the valuation. A ‘black box’ approach is not suitable for the valuation of environmentally impaired properties. As for the question of stigma, it is certainly appropriate to make some allowance for uncertainties in the pre-treatment phase. This allowance is likely to be relatively high when the problem is first discovered, as the valuer will be dealing with many unknown factors. As the problem starts to be defined, for example as the result of a site investigation, and as the physical costs to correct it, associated fees and any penalties become known, the allowance should start to reduce, both in terms of the percentage of overall development cost and the impact on land value. Even though it may be possible to quantify with reasonable accuracy the costs of undertaking the site remediation, prior to start on site, a prudent developer should still expect to see some allowance against the full development value while the works are ongoing. This contingency may well be imposed by a valuer acting for the lending bank, which will be concerned to safeguard its collateral and avoid any ‘unforeseens’ until the remediation has been signed off by the supervising consultant. So far as post-development stigma is concerned, it is the view of this author that in the UK, if the site is properly investigated, the remediation works adequately specified and every step of the work fully documented, post-development stigma does not exist or is at such a low level as to be almost unmeasurable. Others may not necessarily share this view but in England, with a limited supply of development land, coupled with government policies to reuse land and limit the development of greenfield sites, this should be the case. However, if any of the


201

documentation is deficient or missing, e.g. the site diary in respect of one development the author was asked to review some two years after completion, it is only to be expected that the valuation will be reduced, as some degree of uncertainty will still exist. In other countries, with abundant supplies of land and lacking England’s stringent planning policies, land may still suffer from some stigma following remediation, as prospective purchasers will naturally prefer previously unused land for the perceived greater certainty that it provides. So some incentive may be required to encourage the reuse of land or restrict the use of greenfield sites.

9.7

Checklist

• • • • •

Does the valuation take account of any contamination or other problems, known or expected to be found in the ground? Has appropriate allowance been made in the development appraisal for any unforeseen problems and should any further contingency sums be included? Has the site been remediated by others and, if so, is the information provided of acceptable standard and are there adequate warranties in place? Have all relevant reports and risk assessment documents been provided? Is the purpose of the valuation clearly stated?

10 10.1

Urban Extensions, Infrastructure and Eco-towns

Introduction Members of the Urban Task Force, in their independent report Towards a Strong Urban Renaissance: The urban renaissance six years on, published in 2005, observed that the ‘ecological balance of our nation depends on the shape of our towns and cities and the protection of our valuable countryside’ (Urban Task Force, 2005, p. 12). Commenting that pressure for development ‘places huge demands on the environment’, the Task Force members recommended that ‘all opportunities for an urban renaissance’ should be exploited by taking a ‘brownfield-first approach’ and that ‘a new [brownfield] target for an average 75 per cent of residential development across all England’s regions by 2010’ be introduced, with ‘the minimum density standard for new residential raised [from 28–30] to 40 dwellings per hectare’ (Urban Task Force, 2005, p. 14). Whilst agreeing with his colleagues on the great majority of the report, one of the members, Professor Sir Peter Hall, was ‘concerned that the proposals on brownfield and densities, however well intentioned, would – if implemented – deepen the well-documented housing crisis that faces us and our government’ (Urban Task Force, 2005, p. 19). Hall’s reasons were set out in a Town and Country Planning Association (TCPA) ‘Tomorrow Series’ paper The Land Fetish (Hall, 2005), in which he considers the arguments for and against building residential developments at higher densities than had hitherto been the case in England, concluding ‘that it’s a good idea to design urban areas somewhere in the 30–40 [units per hectare] range’. He also conceded that densities ‘probably should go higher than this in some places that are very accessible to shops and services and transport’. In the conclusion to his paper, Hall expressed the view that ‘Transport is not the only dimension of sustainability. It matters too that people live in homes adequately insulated, not only against the weather [but also] against sound from traffic or their neighbours, which is one of the biggest sources of complaint by city-dwellers and a potent source of anger and depression; and high-density development makes this increasingly difficult, save at a cost.’ He then suggests that we need ‘another new towns programme, not this time to build new Harlows and Stevenages or Milton Keyneses, but clusters of small communities along the public transport spines; and not this time by monolithic public corporations, but Land, Development and Design, 2e. By Paul Syms © 2010 Paul Syms


203

by the private builders working to design briefs that will help sell their houses faster to satisfied customers’ (Hall, 2005, p. 25). The present author, although an advocate of the ‘brownfield first’ principle, is strongly in agreement with Hall’s views regarding brownfield targets and increased minimum densities, albeit for possibly slightly different reasons. In his former capacity as the director of National Brownfield Strategy at English Partnerships (2004–8) he consistently advised against increasing the brownfield target above the 60 per cent of new housing to be provided on previously developed land, in spite of the target having been by then comfortably exceeded in most regions of England. Pressure groups, such as the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) and the Environmental Industries Commission (EIC), were lobbying Ministers in CLG and Defra to increase the national target to 70, 75 or even 80 per cent of new housing to be provided on previously developed land. The arguments against increasing both the brownfield land-reuse targets and development densities are quite straightforward:

• • • •

The land-reuse trajectory indicated that the supply of brownfield sites suitable for housing use would start to tail off after 2012. Increasing the target would result in pressure to use land that, without the pressure created by the target, would normally be considered unsuitable for housing, thereby resulting in unsustainable development. Pressure resulting from an increased target would result in the use of unsustainable remediation methods, possibly with high environmental impact, and potentially a loss of biodiversity as land is taken up for housing that should otherwise be providing habitats for flora and fauna. The rush towards increased densities had already resulted in developments with inappropriate urban form, which planners previously might have rejected on the grounds of overdevelopment, and a plethora of one- and two-bedroom flats in multi-storey tower blocks in many of our towns and cities.

When Hall wrote his paper The Land Fetish in 2005, he referred to the latest (2004) projections for growth in household formation, which stood at 3.77 million for the 20-year period 2001–2021, or an average of 188,500 new households being formed each year. By comparison, in 2009 it was estimated that household formation would increase by 6.3 million over the 25-year period 2006– 2031, to an average of 252,000 new households being created each year. Commenting on the 2004 estimates, Hall observed that there were ‘still a few people misguided enough not to believe the figures’ and stated that ‘The fact is that the new households are the result of demographic and social trends: more young people leaving home early, more divorces and separations, more old people surviving their partners for more years. You would have to be particularly Canutelike to believe that you can stop any of these things’ (Hall, 2005, p. 4). In late 2009, following the major downturn in new house building since 2007, there would seem to be little likelihood of anything like enough new dwellings being developed to keep pace with the 2004 household formation projections, let alone the much higher recent figures. If the private housing market is given a sufficient stimulus and if the Homes and Communities Agency begins to meet

204

Development

the social housing targets imposed on it by government, then considerable care will have to be taken in order to ensure we do not repeat the housing mistakes of the past, including those of the early twenty-first century. Only in that way can we ensure the sustainable reuse of previously developed land.

10.2

Sustainable urban extensions Sir Peter Hall, in his footnote to the 2005 Urban Task Force report and his TCPA paper, would appear to advocate a more pragmatic approach than might be suggested by the government’s policy focus on reusing brownfield land and increasing development densities. Such an approach might, for example, result in conclusions being reached that it is more sustainable to develop greenfield sites in close proximity to existing urban areas, and capable of benefiting from existing infrastructures, than to reclaim and redevelop brownfield sites in less-well-served locations. The development of sustainable urban extensions is one method by which land resources may be effectively achieved. In this context the Prince’s Foundation, with English Partnerships and supported by the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR), decided to explore a stakeholder-based approach to masterplanning – the Enquiry by Design approach. Enquiry by Design brings together the different stakeholders in a proposed development – the local authority, residents, developers, landowners, voluntary groups, representatives of employers and retailers – to collaborate in producing a masterplan through a workshop (The Prince’s Foundation, 2000). The process brings key stakeholders together around the same table, in an iterative process in which problems can be aired as they arise and every issue tested by being drawn on paper and discussed before being revised and drawn again. The intensive workshop process may last up to a week, with new opportunities and synergies emerging, adding value and quality to the development. It can be used for the regeneration of existing communities or the planning of wholly new developments and, most importantly, the workshop should result in achieving consensus and reduce the potential for conflict. One development that is often cited as a good example of a sustainable urban extension is at Upton in Northamptonshire. This is a new housing development in a greenfield location and part of the larger south-western expansion of Northampton. Upton had an existing planning permission based around distributor roads and cul-de-sacs, but English Partnerships were clear that they did not want this type of layout. An Enquiry by Design process brought stakeholders together to develop the masterplan, which was based on streets and blocks, good connectivity, encouraging walking rather than driving, adaptable building form and mixed-use principles. The project also includes a sustainable urban drainage system (SUDS) and rainwater harvesting (CABE website, Design Task Group report, 2006). A SUDS project is also included in the new village of Cambourne, Cambridgeshire (see development case study in chapter 14 of the first edition of Land, Development and Design). Owned and maintained by Cambridge Housing Society, the system – illustrated in Figure 10.1 – is monitored by Cambridgeshire County Council and further information can be downloaded from http://www.cambridgeshire. gov.uk/environment/planning/flows/sustainabledrainagescheme.htm.


205

Figure 10.1 Lamb Drove, Cambourne, part of an EU funded FLOWS sustainable urban drainage system (SUDS) project led by Cambridgeshire County Council. Photograph: Mark Syms

10.3

Infrastructure The second overarching principle of the National Brownfield Strategy for England states: ‘Delivery agencies should focus primarily on ensuring the reuse of urban land in towns and cities that have the infrastructure capacity and suitability to support redevelopment’ (English Partnerships, 2007, p. 8); see chapter 2, section 2.4. That is not to say, however, that brownfield sites devoid of the necessary infrastructure should not be redeveloped – only that the strategic approach to brownfield reuse should concentrate on land where infrastructure is available, and that providing infrastructure to other sites should be dealt with via other policies. One such policy aimed at providing the funding for infrastructure was the Planning Gain Supplement (PGS), which arose out of a recommendation by Kate Barker (Barker, 2004) and was announced in the 2005 pre-Budget report. The concept of PGS was that increases in land value would have been taxed after planning permission was granted. A public consultation was held during 2006 (HM Treasury et al., 2005 and HM Treasury et al., 2006) and, in the light of extensive opposition, Chancellor of the Exchequer Alistair Darling announced in his preBudget report on 9 October 2007 that the government was to scrap the idea. In making this announcement, the Chancellor said that the government would be considering a number of alternatives, including:

206

Development

• • • •

A lower-rate PGS coupled with higher section 106 obligations. Under this option, while all PGS revenue would be returned to the region it was raised in, the government would rethink proposals to hand back 70 per cent to the relevant local authority. The PGS to be levied only on greenfield sites, which see the biggest rise in values. Replace the existing system of individually negotiated section 106 agreements with a standard planning charge – in effect a Milton Keynes-style ‘roof tax’. Legislation to introduce a standard planning charge. This would be similar to the previous option, but by placing the charge on a firmer legislative footing, it would be possible to apply it to a wider spectrum of small-scale developments. (McCulloch, 2007)

In May 2007, prior to the announcement that PGS was to be scrapped, the Town and Country Planning Association (TCPA) published a paper by John Walker, former Chief Executive of Milton Keynes Development Corporation, on the concept of using the ‘roof tax’ or tariffs on development as a means of paying for infrastructure. In his paper Walker stresses ‘the approach must be about much more than simply raising funds from landowners and developers through the application of a tariff:

• • • •

It is a strategic and joined-up process that connects spatial, investment and business planning. It involves real increases in commitments from each party – landowners, developers, local authorities, health authorities, government agencies, etc. All have to sign up to a common delivery plan. It can be a means of creating confidence – generating real local empowerment and inclusion in defining and securing the timely delivery of infrastructure to support the growth and/or regeneration of an area. It includes six essential elements … all of which have to go forward in parallel and iteratively at local level. (Walker, 2007, p. 3)

The six essential elements, identified by Walker, are summarised in Table 10.1 below: Walker’s work was supported by the British Property Federation (BPF), which had consistently opposed the introduction of a Planning Gain Supplement (PGS) ‘on the grounds that it breaks the all-important link between developer and local authority; it takes responsibility for physical provision of infrastructure away from the developer; it will be difficult to calculate and lead to lengthy legal disputes; it will almost certainly not raise as much as well-negotiated section 106 agreements; and it will deter much-needed regenerative development’ (Walker, 2007, foreword). The foreword also noted that ‘TCPA is more sympathetic to PGS, but believes that there are nevertheless other schemes based around a tariff approach that could offer either an alternative to PGS or at least a pragmatic way forward while the whole PGS subject is being debated and decided by the politicians.’

Table 10.1 The ‘six essential elements’ for operation of an infrastructure tariff (sources Walker, 2007, and the author’s own views) Essential Element

Comment

Element 1: Establish an infrastructure schedule for sustainable growth and regeneration

Infrastructure needs should be justifiable, realistic and deliverable within the planned timescale of the development project. They should take account of current policies, particularly relating to transport and climate change, and the needs of future generations.

Element 2: Identify and consolidate funding commitments for the required infrastructure from public-sector sources

Major infrastructure works may be required for long-term development projects, with ‘pay-back’ taking place many years into the future as developments produce profits. Infrastructure funding may therefore be beyond the capacity of private-sector developers, who may look to the public sector to underwrite the up-front costs.

Element 3: Agree the tariff level(s)

The tariff or ‘roof tax’ is an agreement between public and private sectors, under which the private-sector developer repays the initial public-sector investment over time, based on the actual cost of the infrastructure. The tariff should be explicit and may take the form of a fixed sum for each completed dwelling or – more likely for projects extending over many years’ duration – a formula by which it is to be calculated: for example, by direct reference to percentages of selling prices or indirectly to an inflation index. The agreement may also require the developer to provide community facilities, such as schools or shops, before a predetermined number of dwellings have been completed and before moving on to subsequent phases of the development. Whatever the basis, it should be kept as simple as possible.

Element 4: Identify a ‘ringmaster’

This should be an organisation, such as a Local Development Vehicle, or a person, acting as the prime interface between private developers and public agencies on matters of tariff collection and application. The ringmaster should control the receipt and application of tariff income, in accordance with a transparent agreement, obtaining assurances from all parties about performance, to be satisfied with the way and extent to which the various risks are shared.

Element 5: Find a ‘banker’

There may be a ‘time lag’ of several years between investment in infrastructure and income from tariff arrangements, and a ‘banker’ is needed to fund this cash-flow gap. This may be a public-sector body, such as the Homes and Communities Agency, or a private-sector financial institution with a guarantee in place from a public agency. Either way, all parties need to be assured that the finance is in place for the expected duration of the project, including cover for any market shifts – i.e. it is not appropriate to finance long-term infrastructure projects with short-term money.

Element 6: Produce a ‘business plan’/‘spatial investment plan’/‘prospectus for growth’/‘delivery plan’

This may have different names according to whether the project is public- or private-sector-led but, regardless of what it is called, the aims and objectives of the infrastructure project and the tariff, in the form of expected outputs from the first five activities must be clearly documented. The document should be unambiguous and, especially in light of experience over the period 2007–09, should be robust in terms of timescales and deliverable, with provision for flexibility in response to market changes.

208

Development

Although the majority of infrastructure-related projects that development surveyors and planners will encounter during their careers may not be ‘nationally significant’, it would be remiss to close this section without some mention of the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC), which came into being on 1 October 2009. ‘Over the next two decades we will need to replace around a third of our electricity generating capacity’ and ‘We need to take steps to improve our transport infrastructure – railways, ports, roads and airports’, as well as our ‘water and waste infrastructure’: Infrastructure planning commission: Implementation route map (CLG, 2009j, p. 2). The government had concluded that the old planning system for nationally significant infrastructure was simply not up to the challenge of meeting the country’s future infrastructure requirements. It had become cumbersome, having grown incrementally to consist of eight separate but overlapping regimes. That is why, after extensive consultation, the government legislated for a new major infrastructure planning regime in the Planning Act 2008 – to provide ‘for a more efficient, transparent and accessible planning system for nationally significant infrastructure projects’ (CLG, 2009j, p. 2). The new regime provides for:

• • • •

the government to produce national policy statements (NPSs) that integrate environmental, social and economic objectives and provide clarity on the need for infrastructure. These are being prepared with the objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development including, in particular, the desirability of mitigating and adapting to climate change; a single consent regime – developers will need to submit just one application instead of the numerous related applications which often had to be made under the previous regime; a new duty – and greater onus – on promoters to ensure that proposals are properly prepared and consulted on before they submit an application for development consent; and a new independent body, the IPC, to take over responsibility for making decisions on nationally significant infrastructure applications. Decisions will be based primarily on, and in accordance with, NPSs. The examination process will be streamlined. Questioning at hearings will be led by Commissioners rather than being fundamentally adversarial in nature. (CLG, 2009j, pp. 2–3)

The IPC is an independent body, chaired by Sir Michael Pitt, with around 35–40 Commissioners and it expects to receive 40–50 applications in its first full year. It is not intended that the IPC will take over responsibility for all ‘nationally important’ infrastructure applications in one go. The ‘route map’ confirmed the government’s intention to switch on the new regime for the energy and transport sectors from 1 March 2010, for the waste water and hazardous waste sectors from April 2011, and the water supply sector from April 2012 (CLG, 2009j, p. 1). This statement was intended to provide certainty and predictability to promoters and interested parties as to how their applications would be treated. The IPC regards itself as an integral part of the new regime for nationally significant infrastructure. It aims to:


• • • • •

209

Simplify the process – eight former development consent regimes for NSIPs will be replaced by a single unified regime. Take a fairer approach – there will be better opportunities for all to take part. We will insist on the highest standard of applications from promoters. Apply independent professional and technical judgement. Reduce the time taken for decisions on major applications – from typically 100 weeks to less than a year. Cut the costs of delivering national infrastructure by £300m annually. (IPC website: http://infrastructure.independent.gov.uk)

At the time of writing, January 2010, three packages of regulations had been published. Consultation on the third package had been completed in October 2009 and it was expected to bring this package into force and publish guidance in March 2010. A fourth package was expected to be published in March 2010. National policy statements (NPSs) lie at the centre of the new regime for nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPs) (CLG, 2009j, p. 8). These will operate as the primary policy documents for the IPC, as well as for applicants and other interested parties when considering applications for development consent. The first seven draft national policy statements were published in November 2009, for public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny. The Department for Transport has also published its draft NPS on ports and the Department of Energy and Climate Change has published a suite of draft energy NPSs, comprising an overarching energy NPS and a range of technology specific NPSs which must be read in conjunction with the overarching NPS.

10.4

Eco-towns The government launched its Eco-towns Prospectus on 23 July 2007, setting out the vision and outline criteria against which eco-towns were expected to deliver:

• • • • • • •

zero-carbon and environmental standards; sustainable transport; design quality; community involvement; employment; health; use of land.

The launch of the Prospectus was accompanied by an invitation for local authorities and other stakeholders to respond with their views on potential sites. In April 2008 a short-list of 15 locations was announced, accompanied by the publication of a consultation document, Eco-towns: Living a greener future (CLG, 2008a), which was followed by a progress report (CLG, 2008b) in July the same year. Eco-towns were seen by government as a response to the challenges of climate change, bringing with them a need for more sustainable living. They were

210

Development

also aimed at addressing a perceived acute housing shortage – including the need for more affordable housing, particularly for families and first-time buyers. Eco-towns were intended to meet the challenges of the future in an ‘innovative and ground-breaking way’, creating great places to live. They were to be:

• • • • • •

new settlements for between 5,000 and 15,000 families, with good links to existing towns; affordable – 30 to 50 per cent of the new homes should be affordable housing; zero-carbon – promoting sustainable and healthy living for existing and future generations; equipped with schools, health services, a medium-scale retail centre, business space and leisure facilities; attractive places – with large amounts of open, green space, and state-of-theart building design; developed with the community, for the community. (CLG, 2008b p. 6)

In seeking to answer the question ‘Why new settlements?’, the government responded that rising housing needs make it necessary to explore options such as new free-standing settlements, as was done with the creation of new towns in the 1960s to address a housing crisis. Eco-towns can exploit various benefits and opportunities as free-standing developments, namely:

• • • • • •

relieving pressure for development in urban areas and the consequent effects on green spaces and public services; providing high-quality green space by proximity to the natural environment; offering families opportunities for space within and around the dwellings; giving practical and economic viability to the adoption of various environmentally friendly technologies; providing an opportunity to plan and deliver a locally appropriate mix of housing types; providing an opportunity to deliver new transport and other infrastructure through economies of scale and increases in land value. (CLG, 2008b, p. 7)

The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) criticised the government’s proposals and argued that eco-towns will not be real, workable and sustainable mixed-use developments. In particular, the RICS raised concerns about the location of eco-towns, who would live in them, the provision of non-residential land uses, and the relationship between eco-towns and the wider planning process. As well as highlighting RICS concerns, the response made some recommendations on how to make eco-towns more sustainable, including the use of off-site power generation and the ‘greening’ of buildings (RICS, 2008). In its response to the eco-towns consultation, the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) welcomed the government’s announcement and noted that, to be successful, ‘Every eco-town will need to be carefully considered and appraised in terms of its geographic and social sustainability.’ The Institute also supported the government’s pledge to build three million new homes by 2020, while com-


211

menting that eco-towns can deliver ‘only a small proportion of the overall need for new homes’ and stressing that the emphasis should be about quality and not quantity. The RIBA therefore encouraged government ‘to choose a small number of the proposals best placed in terms of scale of ambition, locality, integration into the regional and local planning framework, proposal quality, existing transport links and infrastructure, local need and opportunities, and deliverability’ (RIBA, 2008, p. 2). The RIBA added that eco-towns ‘could inform a more measured programme and feed into other types of development, be they Eco-quarters in existing town or city centres, or Eco-extensions to existing settlements, as well as future Ecotowns’ but with a number of provisos – summarised in Box 10.1.

Box 10.1 Summary of points from RIBA’s response to the Eco-towns consultation (source: RIBA, 2008, pp 2–3)

•

•

•

•

•

•

The successful development of entirely new communities on the scale envisaged by the government will be dependent on creating settlements that are desirable as well as functional. Well-designed homes, served by the necessary infrastructure and jobs, will be only part of the criteria for success. Eco-town concepts and designs should show an understanding of and response to their local context, creating a positive and distinctive identity. They should be places where people choose to live and work, now and in the future, recognisably attractive in form and appearance and inclusive for all. To be sustainable socially as well as environmentally, they need to be places that everyone can use with comfort, dignity and convenience, and that seek to further people’s social and economic standing, regardless of their age, disability, gender and other circumstances. Exemplary design of streets and other public space, as well as of buildings and infrastructure, will be vital to realising the true ambition of the programme. Homes in Eco-towns should incorporate minimum space standards, and have a range of types, tenures and sizes that match the local requirements both now and into the future, including the development of lifetime homes and wheelchairaccessible homes. It is vital that Eco-towns inspire and reflect local needs and aspirations. More positive action by the government and its partners, in terms of information and consultation, will be needed before local communities can be expected to support their development. The development of zero-carbon settlements will be a key weapon in mitigating and adapting to climate change, and mitigating its effects. However, the means of promoting the actions, behaviour and skills necessary to adapt to changing conditions have not been sufficiently evident in the government’s Eco-towns pronouncements to date. Delivery mechanisms for Eco-towns must ensure that the quality keeps getting better as the plans are realised, rather than being compromised. Eco-town promoters must be able to demonstrate their grasp of multidisciplinary working and a willingness to champion quality, especially when it is under threat. Good governance and management will be essential to the success of Eco-towns.

212

Development

On 16 July 2009 the government published the Eco-towns planning policy statement as a supplement to PPS1, alongside a list of the first four locations selected for the development of eco-towns – at Whitehill–Bordon in Hampshire, St Austell (China Clay site) in Cornwall, Rackheath in Norfolk and north-west Bicester in Oxfordshire. The PPS supplement ‘sets out a range of minimum standards which are more challenging and stretching than would normally be required for new development’, intended ‘to ensure that eco-towns are exemplars of good practice and provide a showcase for sustainable living’ (CLG, 2009a, p. 1). The PPS sets out the following principles: ET 1.1 Eco-towns should develop unique characteristics by responding to the opportunities and challenges of their location and community aspirations. Eco-town proposals should meet the standards as set out in the PPS or any standards in the development plan which are of a higher standard. Developers and local planning authorities will need to consider how they should be applied in practice, recognising the unique nature of each site. ET 1.2 Developers and local planning authorities developing proposals for eco-towns should take into consideration the Sustainability Appraisal and the Habitats Regulation Assessment undertaken for the PPS. Proposals for new eco-towns should demonstrate evidence of sustainability and deliverability, including infrastructure. (based on CLG, 2009a, p. 3) The PPS then proceeds to describe the locational criteria to be observed in selecting sites for future eco-towns, the relationship to Regional Spatial Strategies and Local Development Frameworks, and the procedures to be followed in determining planning applications, together with provisions for monitoring. The PPS also sets out the standards to be observed in designing eco-towns. The TCPA welcomed the announcement of the first four locations for ecotowns (TCPA, 2009) and has worked closely with stakeholders to produce worksheets that set out principles, information and flexible models for best practice on a range of themes relevant to eco-towns. This series is available as a resource for planning and designing eco-towns and covers Transport; Towards Zero Waste; Community Development; Water Management; Green Infrastructure; Economy; and Inclusive Design. The worksheets can be downloaded free of charge from the TCPA website at www.tcpa.org.uk. The Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) has set up a design review panel to provide expert advice on the design quality of the new eco-towns, with the aim of improving their design. Designs will be reviewed at the earliest possible stage to allow time for the panel’s comments to be taken on board (CABE website, January 2010). The Eco-towns panel comprises 20 leading professionals from across a broad range of disciplines. The CPRE, although supporting the ‘aspirations for more sustainable, affordable housing’ in its response to the eco-towns consultation, had expressed some concerns over the original 15 short-listed sites, including the likely ‘car depend-


213

ency’ of some locations, the loss of greenfield land – especially greenbelt and good-quality agricultural land – and the fact that four of the sites were located in the ‘East of England, a region where water supply and sewerage are already at maximum capacity’ (CPRE, 2008). In responding to the announcement of the four selected sites, CPRE still had a number of concerns, which are summarised in Box 10.2.

Box 10.2 Summary of concerns expressed by CPRE in relation to the first wave of selected eco-town sites (source: CPRE website – updated 17 July 2009) A risk of car dependency – owing to their locations, most of the short-listed eco-towns are unlikely to achieve sustainable transport arrangements; instead they are likely to be car-dependent commuter towns. Loss of countryside – sites are mainly greenfield and encompass some farmland, including, in some cases, the highest-grade agricultural land. Water supply stretched – four schemes were short-listed in the East of England, a region where water supply and sewerage are already at maximum capacity. Goes against local planning – the approach to site selection has not been plan-led, goes against established plans agreed with local communities, and is based on random bids rather than sound planning. Lack of public consultation – an unwarranted level of secrecy and uncertainty has surrounded the initiative, with communities being asked their views on schemes for which insufficient information has been made available. Unsustainable communities – there is a worrying lack of evidence demonstrating that schemes will offer truly sustainable models of living and working. Not genuinely carbon-neutral – it is misleading for ‘zero-carbon’ to be defined as being ‘across the whole development’ and then to qualify this by saying the measure applies only to buildings, since transport accounts for a significant proportion of carbon emissions. Lessons learned will be of limited value elsewhere – the insistence that eco-towns should be ‘freestanding’ makes no sense, since most new development should be in and around towns where infrastructure is already in place or is easier to provide. Reproduced by permission of Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE).

In December 2009 the government announced proposals for a second wave of world-leading eco-towns, and pledged to double the money to a total of £10m to support councils in developing their plans. Housing Minister John Healey announced that a further nine local authorities were considering plans to develop

214

Development

new communities to eco-town standards. He said that the new proposals signalled ‘real and radical momentum to change and to rethink how we design our towns and homes for the future’ (Healey, 2009).

10.5

Summary As can be seen from this chapter, over the last few years the government has commenced a number of initiatives aimed at ensuring the sustainable growth of new development projects in Britain, primarily in England. Inevitably, these initiatives will attract both supporters and detractors from the various professional organisations and lobby groups involved. The purpose of this chapter has not been to provide the reader with a detailed review, or critique, of the different measures; to do so would have been sufficient to fill the book on its own. Instead, the objective has been to provide a brief overview and to signpost the way to other literature and internet sources. It is clear, however, that the topics covered in this chapter can be contentious and they are likely to be the subject of ongoing debate for several years to come. Whether or not urban extensions should be confined to brownfield sites within, or on the fringe of, existing urban envelopes is a moot point. One lobby group may say that greenfield land should not be used in this way, while – as shown in chapter 4 – another may argue that brownfield sites have high biodiversity value and should not be redeveloped. Accommodating the country’s growth requirements by utilising existing infrastructures and by making more efficient use of existing capacity does appear sensible and, where additional capacity has to be provided, it is only right that new developments should meet their fair share of the cost. The eco-towns experiment is in its early stages and will attract considerable analysis and comment over the next decade.

10.6

Checklist

• • • •

Does the development project accord with national, regional and local planning policies and, if not, are there good reasons for the departure? Does the new development conform to principles of sustainability? All new developments should meet stringent environmental standards. Is there an integrated approach to transport across a district as a whole, and has consideration been given to introducing forms of sustainable transport?

11 11.1

Development Finance

Introduction As discussed in chapter 3, the international financial crisis of the last two years (2008–09) has made the funding of development projects problematic for even the largest residential and commercial development companies. Many developers have had to refinance their projects and even entire companies, through renegotiating banking covenants and issuing new shares. It is therefore probably an even rarer occurrence for a development company to fully fund a project from its own resources than it was nearly a decade ago, when the first edition of Land, Development and Design was written. Indeed it is perhaps even more likely that the developer will wish to maximise the borrowing potential of a development, and reduce the ‘downside’ risk in terms of the developer’s own capital – that is, of course, if any development funding is available. The larger, publicly quoted development companies have already taken steps to refinance or raise additional capital, but the same options may not be open to small to medium-sized companies, many of which have found it necessary to mothball projects or even sell their land-banked sites. Nevertheless, at the end of 2009 there were some small signs of recovery, with the Investment Managers’ Association reporting that the [commercial] property sector was the highestselling sector in October 2009, accounting for £367.6 million of net retail sales, the highest since May 2007 (Farrow, 2009). This was accompanied by an upturn in performance for British commercial property that, according to the IPD UK Monthly Index, posted its third consecutive monthly growth, at 1.9 per cent, producing a compounded 3.2 per cent capital growth since August – although that was still a long way from reversing the fall of −42.4 per cent from the market peak in 2007 to July 2009. Working on the assumption that the property markets continue to recover and assuming also that development financing resumes a degree of normality, this chapter looks at the different funding tools available to developers. In normal markets developments can be financed in many different ways and selection of the appropriate method of finance for a project will depend on both the nature of the development and the developer’s objectives. If it is the developer’s intention to sell the buildings, once completed, to individual occupiers, short-term development finance will be required. On the other Land, Development and Design, 2e. By Paul Syms © 2010 Paul Syms

216

Development

hand, if the developer intends to let the new buildings and sell the completed investment to a pension fund, he or she may wish to identify a suitable investor at the outset, so as to combine the development finance and eventual sale as a single package. This is known as ‘forward selling’ the development. Alternatively, the developer may wish to hold the development in the company’s own portfolio, in which case it may be appropriate to secure long-term mortgage funding. In other words, the financing arrangement should be matched to the mediumto long-term objectives of the developer and project. That is not to say that it is not possible to change the financing arrangement at a later date, but some penalties may be incurred. So far as straight development finance is concerned, it can be divided into three types: debt, equity and mezzanine; see section 11.4. Developments can also be financed through joint ventures; these can exist between banks and developers, between two developers, between landowners and developers, or even between public bodies and developers. In some cases joint ventures can be fairly loose arrangements, in that there is simply an agreement to co-operate in order to achieve a common objective. More commonly, however, they will take the form of a ‘Special Purpose Vehicle’ – that is, a limited-liability company established solely for the purpose of carrying out the project, or projects, and in which the joint venture partners hold shares.

11.2

Financial appraisals As mentioned in the introduction to Part 3, property development is largely about risk and all developments involve risk to a greater or lesser extent. In order to compensate for the risks taken a developer will require to make a profit. The profit also has to reimburse the developer in respect of the capital employed on the project – although much of that may be borrowed – and for the entrepreneurialism involved in bringing the development to fruition. The amount of profit required will depend to a large extent on the type of development involved and also on the nature of the developer undertaking the project. In the latter respect developers can be conveniently grouped into two categories: traders and investors. Trading developers are those who undertake projects with a view to selling the completed buildings to end-users or investors, with sales taking place either before the project commences on site – ‘pre-sold’ – or upon completion of the building and letting processes. Investor developers, though, develop primarily to hold completed projects in their own portfolios and create an investment income. There is, however, no clear-cut line between trading and investing developers. Traders may sometimes hold completed developments, especially if they perceive a greater profit by selling at a later date (say, after the first rent review), and investors may also sell investments, for example to realise capital growth and to fund new projects. In general, though, there tends to be some difference in the approach to profits between the two categories of developer: the trader will want to max-

Development Finance

217

imise the percentage return on the development capital, while the investor will be more interested in the revenue return. This difference of approach has important implications for the ways in which development projects are financed. 11.2.1 Institutional leases and investment yields For commercial developments, including industrial estates, business parks and retail stores, prospective investors and the banks providing the development finance will want to be sure that the development is to be let on ‘institutional leases’. An institutional lease is one that will be acceptable to an investing institution, such as a pension fund, insurance company or major property company. It will usually be for a long term, say a minimum of 15 years and preferably 25 years, with provision for ‘upwards only’ rent reviews every five years. The basis of the rent review is usually to ‘open market value’, although in some instances where, for example, there is a lack of comparable market evidence, it may be geared to some other market or to an inflation index. The lease will be on a ‘full repairing and insuring basis’ (FRI), which means that the tenant will be responsible for all repairs and decoration to the building, both internal and external, and for the cost of insurance (which may be by direct policy from an insurance company or by contribution to the landlord’s master policy). The tenant will also covenant to return the premises, in good condition, to the landlord at the end of the lease, which usually means in the same condition as at commencement, fair wear and tear excepted. In other words, the landlord can expect to have a guaranteed minimum income, with all outgoings met by the tenant, with the potential for the rent to increase every five years and to receive the property back in good condition. Provided that the tenant can be expected to remain in business for the duration of the lease, the proposed property investment can be regarded as relatively riskfree by a potential landlord and by a financial institution that has been asked to provide development finance, although it may lack liquidity when compared to other forms of investment; see below. In ensuring that the investment income is as risk-free as possible, the developer will be interested in the ‘covenant strength’ of the prospective tenant – that is, the ability of the tenant to pay the rent. The ideal situation for a developer might be to accept only publicly quoted international companies with a Standard & Poor’s rating of not less than AAA, but even seemingly sound companies have been known to fail. Developers, investors and bankers, while having regard for the credit rating of prospective tenants, will wish to make their own enquiries and satisfy themselves as to the ability of the tenant to pay the rent. The ‘quality’ of the tenant(s), as assessed by a prospective investor, will influence the price that an investor is prepared to pay for the development once it has been completed and is occupied. The price itself is determined by the rate of return the investor requires from the investment. This is more commonly known in the UK as the ‘yield’ and in North America as the ‘capitalization’ (or cap.) rate. Yield rates will fluctuate according to the state of the investment property market and its relationship to other forms of investment.

218

Development

Government bonds – ‘gilts’ in the UK – are generally regarded as the most secure form of investment. Upon maturity the investor receives his or her money back in full (the ‘nominal’ value) and until then receives income at a given rate per cent, with the capital value of the bonds fluctuating according to market conditions. These bonds are also highly liquid, which means that they can be bought and sold in the market, the seller usually receiving payment the following day. The price obtainable by the vendor is likely to be at either a premium or a discount to the nominal value, according to the relationship between the interest payable on the bond and that currently obtainable in the market, e.g. on bank deposit. For example, a 5 per cent bond with a maturity date of 2020 will attract a premium above its nominal value of £100 if bank interest rates are only, say, 2.5 per cent; however, should bank interest rates be above 5 per cent, then the bond will sell at a discount. Exactly the same applies to property investments, but these also have two important features that make them significantly different from government bonds: first, they are more illiquid and usually cannot be sold at short notice; second, their value can fluctuate, unlike the nominal value of bonds. When looking at property investments the potential investors will be looking for a combination of income and growth in the capital value, as, over the long term, property values have tended to grow at rates in excess of inflation. Therefore the higher the investor’s perception of growth from a particular investment property, the lower the initial investment yield he or she will be prepared to accept. The yield rate that an investor is prepared to accept for a particular property investment will also depend on the fund manager’s view of the market and the balance of the portfolio in relation to that market. Investment portfolios generally contain a mixture of different investments, so that some may act as a ‘hedge’ against adverse movements in others. Therefore, if the fund manager considers that the fund is overexposed to property, he or she will become a net seller of properties and will buy only when the yield is more attractive, i.e. higher, than for the properties being sold. This section has provided a brief outline of some of the more important aspects of the investment property market. For a more detailed explanation and introduction to investment valuations see Baum and Crosby (2007).

11.2.2 Viability of the project In considering the financial viability of development projects, the approach taken in this chapter is to look at financial appraisals from the perspective of the trading developer. For such a developer, profit requirements are likely to be between 15 and 25 per cent of the project cost (land, construction, infrastructure, professional fees, finance and other costs), with 20 per cent often being seen as the ‘norm’. The lower end of the range is more likely to apply in situations where all, or a substantial part, of the development has been pre-let at an early stage in the development process, usually before the detailed design has been finalised, and the future tenant has entered into an agreement to take the lease. Such an arrangement will often enable the tenant to have some say in the final design of the

Development Finance

219

finished building and to be in a strong position when negotiating rent and other lease terms. At the other end of the profit requirement scale are developments that are entirely speculative, i.e. with no tenants identified prior to the commencement of construction, and those in designated urban regeneration areas. It should be noted, however, that where urban renewal projects have required ‘gap funding’, or other public-sector support, funding bodies have expected the developer to seek a lower level of profit, below 20 per cent and more likely around 15 per cent, on the principle that the public sector funding provides a cushion against the full exposure to risk.

11.3

Financing a new development The development finance market in the first decade of the twenty-first century has been somewhat different from the property boom period of the late 1980s, with less speculative development, and that is likely to continue. High-street banks, merchant banks and building societies are all possible sources for development finance. Each finance company will have its own lending criteria, and even between the same types of organisation those will differ. There is also less finance available for speculative projects, although whether it is the availability of finance that controls the volume of speculative development is difficult to judge. Banks are less aggressive, in terms of competing to finance development, than they were before the last recession. They have a greater understanding of the risks involved, due to an improvement of the expertise within the banks. According to one banker contacted when researching this chapter, many of the smaller to medium-sized merchant banks have withdrawn from financing property developments. Where banks have remained in this market they have often established specialist property lending teams, as a result of which general bankers are far less likely to become involved with lending on development projects.

11.3.1 Creditworthiness Before deciding whether or not to provide finance for a development project, banks will wish to review the nature of the project itself and to assess the creditworthiness of the intending developer. The project review is an essential part of understanding the degree and type of risks to which the bank might be exposed. In considering property development proposals, the bank will wish to consider the following:

• • •

the experience of the developer in respect of the type of development proposed; the potential market for the proposed product; the robustness of the design and cost estimates provided by the development team.

The bank will also wish to consider any contingency provisions built into the development appraisal and the sensitivity analyses – the ‘what if?’ scenarios –

220

Development

should demand reduce, with the consequence that rents fall, construction costs rise or yield rates increase, thereby reducing the price that investors would be prepared to pay. When considering previously developed or contaminated sites, the bank will need to have regard to:

• • • • • •

any impacts and costs that could arise from natural or man-made occurrences, whether direct or indirect; the possibility that, owing to site problems, the borrower becomes unable to service its wider financial obligations, which may affect the business, its employees, suppliers, the specific project and the bank itself; the ownership of any security, not just property-based, offered to secure the loan; this is of particular importance when the site has a low base value requiring considerable expenditure on remediation; any potential legal liabilities, including Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which may affect the financial position and reputation of the borrower; the ability to continue or re-establish the business in the light of any unforeseen events, potentially leaving the bank having to accept responsibility for a partially remediated site; the possible impact on the neighbourhood, arising out of a failure of the project, which could include the effect on interrelated or interdependent lending, savings or investments.

According to Graham (2001), the developers and/or their design teams will be expected to undertake the necessary level of site investigation and to factor the technical, time and cost implications into their business plans. The banks will seek comfort with regard to the integrity of the proposals and, depending on the circumstances, may additionally require insurance, guarantees or warranties as part of the funding agreement. 11.3.2 Costs of finance In addition to charging interest on the money loaned, usually on outstanding daily balances, the bank will wish to recover its entire incidental costs incurred in approving the loan. These will include surveyors’ fees in advising on the project. For complex schemes this might include both a valuation surveyor and a quantity surveyor to comment on the developer’s estimates of end value and costs. A surveyor will also be required to prepare monthly certificates, confirming the value of the work completed on site and forming the basis for the developer to draw down the finance. An environmental consultant may be needed to advise on reports prepared for the developer or the vendor. The bank may also wish to retain its own environmental specialist to advise on certain aspects of the project as it proceeds. Legal fees and costs will be incurred in respect of the finance agreement. All these costs will have to be paid by the developer or, in the case of a joint venture, out of the Special Purpose Vehicle. In addition, the developer will be expected to pay the bank a commitment fee, around 0.5 per cent of the total loan, in return for the bank making the money available.

Development Finance

11.4

221

Types of finance When writing this section in the first edition of Land, Development and Design the author was grateful for comments made in interviews with property lending officers in two leading merchant banks. The global financial crisis of the last two years has seen both the banks in question effectively withdraw from the financing of property development, at least as far as speculative development is concerned. One of the banks in fact closed its development lending department in 2007, while a representative of the other bank said that they were no longer able to compete with the major retail banks in financing development projects. The rate of interest at which banks borrow from each other, in the UK, is governed by the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR), which is fixed daily by the British Bankers’ Association (bbalibor™). This is a benchmark; giving an indication of the average rate for which a leading bank can obtain unsecured funding for a given period in a given currency. It therefore represents the lowest real-world cost of unsecured funding in the London market (www.bbalibor.com). The important three-month sterling LIBOR rate on Thursday 17 December 2009 was 0.60438 per cent, little more than 10 basis points1 above the Bank of England’s Base Rate, which was at an all-time low of 0.5 per cent. Three-month sterling LIBOR had fallen to a record low of 0.54 per cent on 28 September, and remained around that mark for a while before edging higher. Earlier in 2009, however, only a few of the 50 basis points from the February bank-rate cut filtered through to LIBOR; it stabilised a little above 2 per cent, having been around 2.16 per cent before the cut. It was a similar story after the 50-point bank-rate cut in March. LIBOR stabilised at around 1.25 per cent in early to midJune. The Bank of England’s Quantitative Easing (QE) programme may have helped to get it moving again, as the flow of newly printed money into the financial system might have buoyed confidence, encouraging banks to lend to each other at more favourable rates (www.thisismoney.co.uk/libor) – although, according to one bank official contacted, it is more likely to be years, rather than months, before sufficient confidence is regained for speculative development funding to resume. In good, stable economic conditions major banks will lend to merchant banks and other smaller financial institutions at around 10 to 50 basis points above LIBOR, and international companies, including large property developers, will probably be able to borrow at similar rates. For smaller developers the margins will be higher, perhaps 200–400 basis points above LIBOR, but one banker has commented to the author that, in the light of recent events, the minimum margin required is likely to be at least 200 basis points – 2 per cent above LIBOR. The rest of this section describes the generic types of development finance that may be available to small to medium-sized developers in ‘normal’ market conditions.

11.4.1 Debt financing Debt financing is the conventional loan arrangement, whereby the developer borrows money from a ‘high-street’ or ‘merchant’ bank, or from a building 1

100 basis points equals one per cent.

222

Development

society. A significant factor in the financial problems that have affected the UK development sector in recent years has been the over-commitment of some building societies (mutuals) and former building societies, in financing development projects – both residential and commercial. This type of lending had been a departure from the conventional role of building societies – taking deposits from individual investors and providing mortgages to home buyers – and involved several societies in large-scale borrowing in the wholesale money markets. As a result, several building societies and former societies have been forced into mergers or have been taken over in order to protect depositors. When considering an application for debt financing of a development the lender will wish to see the developer’s own feasibility study, and will also employ a valuation surveyor to advise on the project. If the project is on a previously developed site, the lender will almost certainly wish to see any environmental reports commissioned by the developer, or provided by the vendor of the site, and may wish to employ its own environmental consultant. Loans are limited to a percentage of the expected end-value of the project, or to a percentage of the development cost. For smaller, less experienced developers the bank may wish to see all, or a substantial part, of the company’s banking arrangements transferred to it, in order that it may keep a watch on the overall activities of the developer. Assuming that the intending developer is an established client, with a good management team and past experience (i.e. a good track record) in the type of development involved, some banks have previously considered providing loans of up to 100 per cent of the development cost. That is, provided the development is pre-let on an ‘institutional lease’. Given such a situation, the bank will charge interest on the outstanding balance of the development finance at a margin above LIBOR, which reflects the lender’s assessment of the risks involved. For a development that is pre-let to a major tenant, the bank can afford to lend 100 per cent of the development cost as the development proceeds and if it has been valued as if completed, i.e. the developer’s expectation as to profit will provide a cushion and ‘loan-to-value ratio’ will be around 70–80 per cent. The development finance is paid out only against surveyors’ certificates showing that the value of the property, as enhanced by the construction work completed to date, is less than the loan debt. When the development project is fully pre-let, and where the developer may be intending to retain the completed project as an investment, a bank might be looking for income cover of around 12 per cent, i.e. the guaranteed rent receivable when the building is complete as a percentage of the development cost, say with interest on the development finance at perhaps 7.5 per cent and an expected investment yield on completion of 8 per cent. Therefore, if the project runs into problems and completion is delayed, the bank will still receive its interest payments, although the developer’s profit margin will be eroded. A somewhat different situation exists if the property is not fully pre-let on an institutional lease to a tenant of good standing. If the development is only 50 per cent pre-let, the bank’s guaranteed income cover would be only 6 per cent, i.e. less than the interest payable on the loan. If the loan is non-recourse – that is, not secured on the general assets of the developer or with other properties offered as security – the bank would be exposed to a greater degree of risk. Nevertheless,

Development Finance

223

they might still be prepared to finance the project without necessarily increasing the interest rate, but might require a ‘back end’ fee on completion of the project, which would have the effect of reducing the developer’s profit. 11.4.2 Equity financing Equity financing involves a bank or other financial institution taking a stake in the project. It may acquire shares in the development company, or in a company set up for the sole purpose of undertaking the one development, known as a ‘Special Purpose Vehicle’. The bank forms an integral part of the development team and, in a full equity participation project, the other members of the professional team are as responsible to the bank as to the developer. Under equity participation arrangements the bank will take a share of the development profit in addition to interest on the development finance, although the interest margin may be at a slightly reduced rate. Historically, some banks have tended to provide higher-than-normal loans as a ratio of end-value and then take a profit share, in effect providing debt finance at a lower-than-market rate in return for a share in the success of the development. The bank’s financing margin may be secured under the development agreement, whereas the profit share would be ‘at risk’. Let us assume, for example, a developer has available a sum equivalent to 15 per cent of the development cost; the lender might provide the rest and become very closely involved with the development, taking a share in its success. The lender would appoint a firm of chartered quantity surveyors and construction cost consultants to safeguard its interest. A Special Purpose Vehicle, set up outside the developer’s main company to undertake one or more joint ventures, might well carry out the project, with no recourse to the other assets of the developer. The bank would charge interest on the outstanding balance of the development finance at, say, a rate of 2 per cent above LIBOR, and would expect to receive a profit share of between one-third and one-half of the development profit. It would make an internal allocation between debt and mezzanine finance, but that would not affect the relationship with the developer. Under this type of arrangement it would be normal for payments in respect of work on site to be made directly from the lender to the contractors, against quantity surveyors’ certificates, so as to ensure that the funds are not diverted elsewhere. Regardless of the precise nature of the funding arrangements, lenders will base their decisions on a viability report on the project, taking account of the expected end-value of the development. They do not simply base their lending on the existing value of the land. Lenders are unlikely to take risks on sites where planning permission has not been obtained, but they might take a ‘planning improvement risk’, where the price to be paid for the land relates to its existing use value, i.e. the price does not include any element of ‘hope value’. 11.4.3 Mezzanine finance Mezzanine finance is important in situations where the developer is seeking to raise a higher percentage of the development finance than would normally be

224

Development

loaned by a bank or building society. Say, for example, that the bank was prepared to lend up to 60 per cent of the end-value of the development, but this represented only 80 per cent of the development cost net of any developer’s profit. The developer could then either provide additional collateral, in the form of other properties (even his or her own house), or seek another lender to provide the rest of the development finance. This mezzanine finance is riskier than the main funding, as it will rank second in any claims if the project fails, hence the financier will require a higher margin on the interest rate.

11.5

Joint ventures and Special Purpose Vehicles As mentioned above, the simplest form of joint venture is where two or more developers come together to acquire a site that is larger than either would wish to purchase on their own. This is not unusual where house builders combine together for large developments, often producing houses that are complementary to each other in terms of styles and target markets. The agreement may cover little more than how many plots each developer is to receive, whereabouts they are to be located on the site and the proportionate cost of main roads and service infrastructure to be borne by each developer. Such agreements should also cover who is to do what in terms of matters such as obtaining planning permission and appointing civil engineering contractors. They should also contain an arbitration clause, in case unforeseen problems are encountered and agreement cannot be reached as to how they should be resolved. An alternative to that would be for a single developer to accept responsibility for obtaining planning permission, providing the roads and infrastructure, and then selling an agreed number of plots at a predetermined price (or based on a formula) to the other developers. Joint ventures may exist over a number of sites or development projects. For example, a manufacturer with numerous plants may be ‘downsizing’ or consolidating its operations in a smaller number of locations and will enter into an agreement with a developer in order to maximise the development potential out of each site. The advantage to the landowner of such an arrangement includes not having to market each site individually and negotiate terms for sales or joint venture agreements with numerous different parties. It also helps by establishing a relationship with a developer who will quickly gain an understanding of the manufacturer’s operations, including the contamination or other problems that might be encountered, and the company’s needs in terms of disposals and cash flow. A typical arrangement for such a joint venture, covering one or more sites, would be to form a limited liability company, with the shares held equally between the parties. The landowner would transfer the sites into the joint venture company, as they become vacant, at open market value and the developer would inject an equivalent sum as working capital. The rest of the development finance would then be raised as debt finance, with additional sureties or guarantees (if needed) being provided by the two parent companies. With this type of model the developer partner would normally expect to receive a management fee for running the project and the development profit – or loss – would be shared equally. It is important to ensure that the company used as the development vehicle is empow-

Development Finance

225

ered, through its Memorandum and Articles of Association, to undertake the types of project proposed and can either retain or sell the completed buildings at the discretion of the directors. Care must also be taken to ensure that the implications regarding ‘casting votes’ and dispute resolution are fully understood by all concerned. Another alternative for a joint venture between landowner and developer would be to enter into a partnership agreement, without becoming bound together in a joint venture company. Under this type of arrangement the land is either transferred to the developer at ‘existing use’ value, which means that the developer has the ability to use the land as security to raise bank finance, or it is retained by the landowner until the project is completed and a ‘building licence’ is granted to the developer. The arrangement would contain an ‘uplift’ provision for an additional sum to be payable to the landowner once planning permission, meeting specified criteria, has been obtained. Under this model all of the development risk is taken by the developer, the landowner may or may not receive interest on the ‘land value’ element, and the development profit will be divided according to an agreed formula. The division of profit may be either ‘side by side’, whereby the developer and landowner share all of the profit in agreed proportions, say 60/40 or 70/30 in the developer’s favour, or ‘horizontally sliced’, whereby the developer takes, say, the first 15 per cent of the profit, as a proportion of the development cost, the landowner takes the next 10 per cent and anything in excess of that is shared equally. Under profit-sharing arrangements of this nature the base land value, specified in the agreement, and the development costs will be the first and second charges respectively against the development proceeds. If the development failed to make a profit, then the developer would, normally, be responsible for any losses, including the repayment of bank borrowings.

11.6

Forward sales and rental guarantees Deciding when to sell a commercial or industrial development can be very important to a developer, as it can have a significant impact on the profitability of the development. There are two main options open to the developer, but with various permutations in between. As mentioned in section 11.1, the developer can decide to sell the project before any work has been started on site – a ‘forward sale’ – or can wait until construction has been completed and the buildings have been fully let. On larger schemes, consisting of more than one building, the developer can also take a more flexible approach, for example forward-selling the first building but holding the second or subsequent buildings until fully let. As with the provision of development finance, the attitude of investing institutions towards forward sale propositions will differ according to the extent to which the development is pre-let and the covenant strength of the proposed tenant or tenants. A building in a prime position – say, an office block in the centre of a prosperous town or city, or a warehouse building close to an important motorway junction – when let to a first-class tenant will more readily attract an institutional investor than one in a secondary location let to a weaker tenant. This

226

Development

is referred to as ‘covenant strength’, as the stronger the financial standing of the tenant company, the more likely it is to be able to pay the rent for the full term of the lease, whereas with a weaker covenant the probability that the tenant will default is increased. If the property market is strong, then there may well be considerable competition from potential investors, with the result that the yield rate achieved on the forward sale is the same, or virtually the same, as if the building was already completed and occupied. In a weaker market the developer of a well-located building, for which a first-class tenant has been secured, might have to accept a price based on a slightly higher yield, say, increased by half a percentage point, but will have to weigh this against his or her judgement as to whether or not the market will weaken further before the development is completed. There may also be an added advantage in that the investing institution may be prepared to provide the development finance at a more advantageous rate than a bank or building society. When the development is not in a prime position and is only partly pre-let it may still be possible to arrange a forward sale. However, the price achievable will show a significant discount against that which might be achieved if the building had already been completed, with the yield rate moving out by one percentage point or more. The purchasing institution will probably also require the developer to provide a rental guarantee in respect of any unlet space. Such a guarantee is likely to be time-limited, say up to the first rent review period, and have a financial cap, possibly equal to the developer’s profit expectation. In a worst-case scenario, therefore, the developer’s maximum loss is limited to the profit that would have been made had the development been fully let by the time construction was completed – in other words, the developer could have done all the work for no reward. At first sight this may seem like a poor arrangement for the developer, but it does have the advantage of minimising the downside risk – the degree of exposure before the developer starts to show a return – and if the development, or the market, goes badly wrong the investing institution will have to absorb any further losses beyond the guarantee.

11.7

Public-sector finance During the 1980s and indeed into the 1990s, the weak market conditions existing in some parts of the country meant that property development would have come to a complete standstill had it not been for the availability of public-sector finance in the form of `gap funding’. Introduced in 1983 as the Urban Development Grant (UDG), modelled on the American Urban Development Action Grant (UDAG), gap funding provided by the Department of the Environment (DoE) was intended to make up the difference between the cost of a development project and its investment value, or expected sales proceeds, in situations where costs exceeded value. UDG operated in the period between 1983 and 1988, with URG (Urban Regeneration Grant) being added in the latter part of this period in order to promote area regeneration (Price Waterhouse, 1993, p. 60). In practice, very few

Development Finance

227

URGs were awarded and the emphasis remained on the single-building type of regeneration project, rather than wider, area-based projects. City Grant replaced both UDG and URG in May 1988. Responsibility for the grant regime passed from the DoE to English Partnerships in April 1994. English Partnerships combined City Grant with Derelict Land Grant to form the English Partnerships Investment Fund (EPIF), of which the Partnership Investment Programme (PIP) continued to provide ‘gap funding’ for property development projects. The aims of these gap-funding regimes were ‘to promote the economic and physical regeneration of inner urban areas by levering private-sector investment into such areas’. UDG projects were also expected to ‘make a demonstrable contribution to meeting the special needs of inner urban areas and to creating a climate of confidence for the private sector’ (Price Waterhouse, 1993, p. 5), although this was not emphasised in relation to City Grant. In terms of levering in private-sector investment, a yardstick was set – £1 of public money for every £4 of private-sector money, although that was not always achieved. Property developers were expected to make a profit from grant-aided schemes, although the return might have been somewhat lower than the developer would normally have expected to make in a run-down area or a poor market – say around 15 per cent of the end value, compared to the 20–25 per cent that the developer might regard as an appropriate return for the risk involved if publicsector participation was not available. Land values were often contentious issues between private-sector applicants and the grant appraisers acting for the grantawarding body. Applicants hoped to include land in their development appraisals at a figure at least equivalent to existing-use value, or even some enhanced development value, whereas the grant appraisers often took the approach that if the project needs a grant, then the land must be valueless. A compromise was usually reached, but there were many cases where land changed hands at inflated values without any development being carried out, in the expectation that a grant would be received – only for the purchaser to find that the appraiser would not accept, for grant purposes, the price paid for the land. The English Partnerships’ PIP programme closed in December 1999, following a ruling by the European Commission that PIP was in breach of state-aid rules and therefore was not compatible with the principles of the Common Market, although projects already approved continued to receive funding. Following closure of the PIP scheme, and after discussions between the government and the European Commission, five new schemes were introduced in May 2001, intended to partially replace the PIP. These included a direct-development scheme; two gap-funding schemes – one for developments for a known end-user, the other for developments for disposal in the open market; a scheme for community regeneration; and a scheme for environmental regeneration. In essence these were relatively short-lived, in that they received little in terms of active promotion or funding. Subsequently an EU-compliant land remediation scheme was agreed with the European Commission. This was similar to the previous Derelict Land Grant in that any enhancement in value, attributable to the remediation works, should accrue to the public sector. This is available as a regeneration tool for use by the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) and the Regional Development Agencies (RDAs).

228

Development

Nowadays, and assuming a return to more normal market conditions, publicsector participation in developments is more likely to be through much closer partnership arrangements than existed under the relatively loose gap-funding regimes. Public–private partnerships are usually seen as being a means by which the private sector meets the capital cost of public buildings or infrastructure, with the public sector then making payments in the form of rents or the costs being recouped in some other way, such as tolls for new bridges or roads. They may also be used to develop projects that contain a mix of public and private buildings, for example developing part of a college site to provide both new offices and improved teaching facilities. In future, however, public-sector partners will almost certainly become involved in a much wider range of development projects, both through formal partnership agreements and through planning agreements. They will require control over the percentage of developments allocated as social housing, possibly including nomination rights in respect of tenants; for different types of shared ownership arrangement; and initiatives such as those supporting first-time buyers. They will require significant inputs into the specification of projects – perhaps not to the extent of selecting construction materials, but certainly with regard to thermal insulation and carbon footprints, including the future energy consumption of new buildings.

11.8

Summary This chapter has attempted to illustrate the many different ways in which development projects can be financed. The extent to which banks and other financial institutions will be prepared to provide finance depends upon a number of different factors, foremost of which are the track record of the developer concerned and the institution’s perception of the development project itself. The chapter has been written against the background of the most severe recession in the UK since the Second World War and worldwide economic malaise. Banks have lost confidence in each other, and in several countries central banks have had to cover the losses of banks that were seen as being ‘too big to fail’. These events have impacted greatly on the property development industry and, although the chapter has outlined methods of obtaining development finance, the reality is that funding may not be available other than for the best projects to be carried out by developers with unblemished track records. Even a successful developer will have problems in arranging finance if the bank considers the project to be too risky. Pre-let or pre-sold projects will continue to be easier to finance than those that are entirely speculative. Joint ventures may provide an alternative to bank finance and they may also be entered into for many other reasons – but even when banks are prepared to take substantial equity stages in joint venture projects, they can fail in adverse market conditions. Public-sector participation will undoubtedly play an important part in bringing development projects to fruition, especially housing regeneration projects, but it is less likely to take the form of ‘gap-funding’ grant aid and will most probably operate through forms of equity participation, or taking a ‘banker’ role in the provision of infrastructure.

Development Finance

11.9

229

Checklist

• • • • •

Examine the risks attaching to the selected form of finance. Include finance costs in the development appraisal, including any additional fees. If conventional funding is not available, investigate alternatives such as joint ventures. Consider whether some form of public–private partnership would be an appropriate means to bring the project forward. Be realistic when determining costs, including development finance.

Part Four Design

12 12.1

Public Realm and Managing Land for Public Benefit

Introduction The public realm may be referred to as ‘those parts of the city, whether publicly or privately owned, that are available for everyone to see and enjoy without charge twenty-four hours a day. This encompasses a substantial part of the natural and built environment, including but not limited to streets, squares, pathways, parks and other open spaces. (City of Edinburgh, 2008, chapter 28, 28.1) and All open space in a development should be obviously useful and visually pleasant. Thus all public spaces, whether squares, streets, pedestrian links or parking courts, are part of the provision of different types of space, each with their own function and all designed to provide a high level of amenity. The provision of arbitrary pieces of ‘public open space’ can result in spaces that are divorced from the main pattern of public street spaces, are neither useful nor attractive, and indeed are a nuisance to residents. They are also expensive to maintain. (Essex County Council and Essex Planning Officers’ Association 2005, p. 36) These straightforward statements set out in a very practical way a credo that many project teams would do well to observe when planning their next development. It is no longer sufficient to take an area of land within a development site that is deemed undevelopable because of its configuration, difficult access, topography or stability, and simply grass it over and then call it ‘public open space’. Instead, it is essential that the public realm, in its different forms and functions, is treated as an important and integral part of the whole project. Streets of all types and sizes have important roles to play as part of the public realm. Jacobs (1993) describes a ‘great street’ as being one that is ‘physically comfortable and safe’, one that ‘might be cooler, more shady than another street on a hot summer day’, with ‘no sudden, unexpected gusts of wind off buildings’. As far as ‘physical safety’ is concerned, he says that ‘this can mean many things, but the general concern is relatively straightforward’, such as not having ‘to worry about being hit by a car or truck or about tripping on the pavement …’ (Jacobs, 1993, pp. 8–9). Hass-Klau et al. studied streets as ‘social spaces’ and concluded that ‘The purely architectural design of a space, whatever the period in which it Land, Development and Design, 2e. By Paul Syms © 2010 Paul Syms

234

Design

was built, is not the decisive factor in whether a place or a street has an important social function within a town’ (Hass-Klau et al., 1999, p. 125) – although they conceded that, ‘When people are desperate to sit down, the quality of the urban space does not seem to matter’ (ibid, p. 30). According to Juvara (2008), ‘The majority of the public realm of every city and town is made of normal neighbourhoods, streets and access roads [that] are generally designed through parameters of vehicular needs.’ As a result, the requirements of people who live in and use these areas may not be fully taken into account but ‘it is here that people spend most of their time’. It is also the case that by no means all ‘public realm’ areas are truly public: some are ‘quasi-public – private–public space such as shopping malls (no hoodies allowed), squares in housing developments (residents only), and even town centres run by private companies (Big Issue sellers removed). Private ownership means a plethora of rules and regulations that take the public out of public realm’. She notes there ‘is an assumption that we can no longer afford to pay for public space, and buy-in from the private sector is required’, but argues this does not have to be the case, as ‘We now have the means for demonstrating the economic value of benefits arising from a quality public realm, showing that the benefits can outweigh the costs’ (Juvara, 2008, p. 25) Streets are by no means the only aspects of public realm that need to be considered by project teams, although almost inevitably they are responsible for creating the first impressions received by visitors to an area. They also ‘make up the greater part of the public realm. Better-designed streets therefore contribute significantly to the quality of the built environment and play a key role in the creation of sustainable, inclusive, mixed communities …’ (Department for Transport, 2007, p. 11). Public spaces also include parks and recreation grounds, as well as more informal areas of open space and the quasi-public spaces referred to by Juvara. Ensuring the provision of good-quality public spaces should feature as a fundamental criterion in designing sustainable communities of the future, especially when responding to government policies that look to higher development densities. Open spaces do not necessarily have to be provided through large, multifunctional parks – ‘smaller, more localised open spaces [can] create a more varied townscape’ (Essex County Council Design Guide, 2005, p. 36). With higherdensity developments and inevitably smaller gardens, these can to some extent compensate for the loss of private amenity space and should contribute towards the percentage of open space required by a local planning authority. The Essex Design Guide also suggests that ‘Parks and school playing fields should preferably be fronted by houses rather than tucked away behind, so that they become a more obvious part of the circulation system, benefit from informal supervision from the houses and contribute to the amenity of outlook of the houses’ (Essex County Council Design Guide, 2005, p. 36).

12.2

Planning for quality public spaces A recurring theme in many of the chapters in this book is that of sustainability and safeguarding the environment. Concerns about the environment have added


235

‘critical new dimensions to the way urban designers think about and work with the public realm’ (Brown et al., 2009, p. 251). These include:

• • • •

spreading interest in comprehensive tree planting and other landscape programmes that, beyond providing visual amenity, cool streets and improve urban air quality; interconnected and continuous systems of parks, greenways, and other green elements that help to capture and naturally filter pollutants out of rainwater before it reaches rivers and aquifers; zoning initiatives that ensure the availability of sunlight and natural ventilation in densely built areas; new technologies that bring light and water to public spaces. (Brown et al., 2009, p. 251)

In addition to the benefits listed by Brown and his colleagues, these approaches also provide significant environmental benefits by the creation and strengthening of habitats, for both flora and fauna, as discussed in chapter 5. According to the UK Government, in the Introduction to its strategy report World-class Places: The government’s strategy for improving quality of place (CLG, 2009c)1: ‘Quality of place matters in many ways [and] there are few things that we want for ourselves, our families or our country that are not affected by the built environment.’ The report then goes on to state, ‘Bad planning and design and careless maintenance encourage crime, contribute to poor health, undermine community cohesion, deter investment, spoil the environment and, over the long term, incur significant costs’ (CLG, 2009c, p. 6). Whilst acknowledging that much has been accomplished in improving the quality of public spaces, and the contribution made by organisations such as the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE), the report recognises that there is still much to be done that cannot be achieved by central government alone. The strategy acknowledges that ‘quality of place’ can be defined in different ways but, for the purpose of the strategy, it is defined as ‘the physical characteristics of a community – the way it is planned, designed, developed and maintained – that affect the quality of life of people living and working in it, and those visiting it, both now and into the future’ (CLG, 2009c, p. 11). It also identifies the many different factors that contribute to quality of place and how, together with other factors, the physical characteristics of a local area can contribute to the quality of life of the people who live and work there – see Figure 12.1. The strategy report identifies the four ‘elements’ of quality of place as being:

• • • • 1

a good range and mix of homes, services and amenities; well-designed and -maintained buildings and spaces; ample high-quality green space and green infrastructure; sensitive treatment of historic buildings and places. (after CLG, 2009c, pp. 12 and 18)

Although the strategy was published by CLG, it was prepared for and endorsed by both Communities and Local Government (CLG) and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS).

236

Design

Quality of place factors

Good health and care services

Good child care services and schools Good public transport services Good air quality and lack of noise and congestion

Good supply and mix of affordable low energy decent homes Well designed and maintained buildings

Homes and neighbourhoods designed with older, disabled and younger people in mind

Low crime and low fear of crime

Good mix of local shops, pubs and restaurants

Activities for young people

Good transport infrastructure

Good range of easily accessible cultural facilities

Well designed and maintained streets and public spaces Built heritage treated as an asset

Local, easily accessible public services Good range of local sport and leisure facilities

Ample high quality green space and green infrastructure

Civic engagement and trust in government

Good job opportunities Low cost of living Good community cohesion Good relations between neighbours

Strong community groups and ‘Third sector’

Other factors

Figure 12.1 Local area factors contributing to good quality of life (CLG, 2009c, p. 11)

Together, these four elements contribute to the quality of places and to the creation of vibrant, mixed-use, attractive neighbourhoods that can be used for a wide range of activities, including walking, cycling and social interaction. They can accommodate public transport and provide ease of mobility, in places that provide a green and pleasant environment, with a sense of identity. If surrounded by user-friendly, low-energy buildings they should be capable of adapting to changing conditions. As discussed later in this chapter, good urban design can produce economic value, although it should be recognised that it may not always be measurable in the short term. Therefore it is often better to examine the impact of good design in terms of broader outcomes, such as:

• •

reduced levels of crime and improved perceptions of crime risk; improved standards of physical and mental health;


• • • • • • •

237

increased inward investment, leading to improvements in the local economy and more job opportunities; improved levels of satisfaction with the area on the part of residents, workers and visitors; enhanced social capital and community cohesion; a more socially inclusive society; a more sustainable environment; better public services; and less fuel poverty. (expanded from CLG, 2009c, p. 18)

The strategy report suggests that, as a general rule, the more densely settled an area the more viable amenities and services become, and that ‘is one reason why the government has encouraged higher-density living’ (CLG, 2009c, p. 13). It recognises the argument put forward by some critics ‘that most people would rather live in lower-density areas’ and accepts as important the need to develop areas that offer a wide choice of neighbourhoods, catering to differing needs and aspirations. These also need to be neighbourhoods in which people can find housing that meets, or adapts to, their changing requirements as they go through life – see chapter 14 for more on this subject. 12.2.1 Design and upkeep of buildings and spaces The point is made that good design ‘goes beyond the visual or aesthetic quality of a building [but] is also about its durability, inclusivity, functionality and sustainability’. It suggests that the best tests are simple ones, such as:

• • • • •

Is this an attractive building? Does it look as though it belongs here? Is it cost-effective to run and easy to maintain? Is it enjoyable to use? Will it last? (CLG, 2009c, p. 13)

Emphasis is placed on the fact that the streets, roads and squares that connect buildings are just as important as the buildings themselves, since ‘The scale and shape of buildings, the layout of streets, squares and parks, the handling of materials and signs, accessibility for disabled and older people, all help to influence the feel of an area and the way it functions … Finally, the upkeep of buildings and spaces is as important as the original design’ (CLG, 2009c, p. 13). 12.2.2 Green space and green infrastructure ‘Parks and green open spaces are both a highly valued and highly used feature of the built environment’ (CLG, 2009c, p. 15) and, according to Defra’s Sustainability Indicators (Defra, 2009c, p. 143) over 95 per cent of people thought that it was very or fairly important to have green spaces near to where they live, while three

238

Design

out of four people visit a public green space at least once a month, with 22 per cent of people visiting green space three or more times a week. In addition to safe, attractive and well-managed parks and green play spaces, high-quality places also require ‘ample “green infrastructure” – the “nature” between, around and on buildings, streets and squares, including trees, waterways, ponds and lakes, paths, gardens, and green roofs and terraces’. Green infrastructure is seen in the government’s strategy as having ‘a vital role to play in combating climate change and tackling its effects in the form of higher temperatures and increased risk of flooding’ (CLG, 2009c, p. 15) It also has the ability to add to people’s enjoyment of a place, as well as the way they behave and interact in it. 12.2.3 Treatment of historic buildings and places ‘Our historic environment is vital to our self-understanding, our sense of connectedness to the past and to the future, and is a valuable asset in creating a sense of place. Local people value it, as do tourists and investors’ (CLG, 2009c, p. 15) ‘Heritage’ and ‘historic environments’ extend far beyond castles, churches, stately homes, rustic cottages and elegant town houses, to encompass ancient ruins, industrial buildings, and twentieth-century architectural masterpieces. They also include many other things that we use on a day-to-day basis and often take for granted, such as historic infrastructure, including street networks, railways, historic parks and waterways – see the following section and chapter 6. High-quality spaces thus produce a combination of economic, social and environmental benefits. Economic benefits are achieved through attracting new investment, especially in regeneration areas. The initial costs involved in providing quality rather than the mundane may be seen as high, but quality can produce higher investment values, be more durable and, over the lifetime of a project, prove to be more cost-effective. Social benefits can be derived through the creation of more inclusive communities, with better public services, leading to improved community safety and generally contributing to raising the health and well-being of the community. Environmental benefits can be enjoyed through greater sustainability, with less car usage and more emphasis on walking and cycling, together with greater energy efficiency in well-designed buildings and places. The government’s strategy report recognises that whilst progress is being made, with several good exemplars included as case studies, the design quality of new public buildings and standards of new homes and neighbourhoods, both private and publicly funded, could be further improved. Citing CABE’s audit of privatesector housing, which found that 18 per cent were good or excellent, 53 per cent average and 29 per cent poor, the strategy report notes that ‘particular weaknesses identified included:

• •

Public realm such as parks and squares was often insufficient for the scale of the scheme or ill-maintained. New developments missed opportunities to take advantage of existing heritage, including buildings and open spaces, with the result that too many new developments have a ‘could be anywhere’ quality about them.


•

239

New neighbourhoods were often difficult to access or move through, largely because street design primarily took into account the needs of vehicle users rather than seeking to accommodate the needs of the wider community such as pedestrians and cyclists.’ (CLG, 2009c, p. 16)

Overcoming these weaknesses and tackling other challenges to improve the quality of places will require sustained attention over the medium to long term; added to which the economic conditions existing since 2007 have produced further short-term pressures and challenges. As discussed in chapter 3, there has been a slowdown across private-sector development – residential, office, retail, leisure and industrial – and although in early 2010 there does seem to be some improvement, it will be some time before property markets fully recover. As summarised above, the strategy document lays out the government’s understanding of the key opportunities and challenges it faces. In order that these challenges may be addressed, the strategy sets out a ‘simple but ambitious’ vision – ‘to ensure that all places are planned, designed and developed to provide everyone, including future generations, with a decent quality of life and fair chances’ (CLG, 2009c, p. 8). It lists seven broad strategic objectives and individual actions to be taken forward in an Action Plan, with partners, to improve quality of place – see below. In 2010 it intends to publish an update on progress made in implementing the action plan. 12.2.4 World-class Places – Action Plan Published in November 2009, the government’s action plan sets out how it intends to work with its partners in the industry to deliver the ambitions set out in the strategy. Central to this are the seven strategic objectives set out in World-class Places: The government’s strategy for improving quality of place. World-class Places – Action Plan (DCMS and CLG, 2009) takes these further in explaining how government expects them to be delivered. The seven strategic objectives and lead departments, agencies or other organisations are as follows. Strategic objective 1: Strengthen leadership on quality of place at the national and regional level Actions include strengthening the role of ministerial design champions; embedding quality-of-place objectives and targets in departmental strategic objectives – so as to improve the quality of public-sector buildings and places; ensuring regional development agencies work to improve quality of place; and publishing a statement of the government’s vision for the historic environment in England. Next steps Commencing in autumn 2009, agree with Ministerial Design Champions their departmental remits in delivering quality of place and approach towards addressing opportunities and challenges, to be led by DCMS’s Secretary of State as the Government Design Champion, CABE, Ministerial Design Champions, CLG and

240

Design

BIS. Ensure that quality of place is a priority across government, from autumn 2009 – led by government and Ministerial Design Champions. Strategic objective 2: Encourage local civic leaders and local government to prioritise quality of place Actions include developing better ways of assessing quality of place, measuring it as a local government performance indicator and ensuring that quality of place is reflected in Comprehensive Area Assessments; working with local authorities to achieve high-quality development; improving the support and training on quality of place for civic leaders and planning committee members; and establishing a new award scheme for high-quality places. Next steps Make it easier for local authorities to prioritise quality of place, through identifying ways to amend existing indicators, commencing in part in autumn 2009 and in part in spring/summer 2010 – to be led by CLG. Strategic objective 3: Ensure relevant government policy, guidance and standards consistently promote quality of place and are user-friendly Actions include introducing new planning policy on the historic environment, green space and green infrastructure; extending the Manual for Streets; and developing an integrated set of standards for homes and neighbourhoods. Next steps Consultation to commence in autumn 2009, followed by publication of a new Planning Policy Statement in summer 2010 to bring together the key messages from PPS7, PPS9 and PPG17 – led by CLG, Defra and DCMS. New PPS on the historic environment, spring/summer 2010 – CLG and DCMS. Guidance extending the Manual for Streets is to be published in autumn 2010 – DfT lead. Developing an integrated set of standards for homes and neighbourhoods, consultation early 2010 – HCA lead. Strategic objective 4: Put the public and community at the centre of place shaping Actions include encouraging public involvement in shaping the vision for their area and the design of individual schemes; promoting and funding more user engagement in the design of new public buildings; encouraging community involvement in the ownership and management of public realm and community facilities; and promoting public engagement in creating new homes and neighbourhoods. Next steps From autumn 2009, supporting programmes that will strengthen citizens’ and communities’ influence over local decision making affecting quality of place, with


241

other actions following from spring 2010 – CLG lead. Promote greater public engagement in the creation of new homes and neighbourhoods, from autumn 2009, and update the Community Engagement Toolkit, to be completed summer 2010 – HCA lead. Strategic objective 5: Ensure that all development for which central government is directly responsible is built to high design and sustainability standards and promotes quality of place Actions include establishing design thresholds for all new government-funded building programmes; ensuring publicly funded homes and neighbourhoods meet high standards of design and construction; attaching conditions to the disposal of public land so as to ensure the achievement of high-quality development. Next steps Ensure public building programmes are designed and built to the highest standards and improve the quality of life of their users and the local community, from spring 2010 – CABE lead. Ensure that publicly funded homes and neighbourhoods meet the new design quality standards, from autumn 2009 – HCA lead. Explore the case for requiring public-sector agencies to attach quality conditions to the disposal of public-sector land for uses beyond housing, from autumn 2009 – CLG lead. Ensure that the Common Minimum Standards (CMS) are delivered in a consistent way, from autumn 2009 – led by the government, through OGC, in partnership with CABE. Encourage widespread adoption of the Protocol on care of the Government Historic Estate, from autumn 2009 – English Heritage lead. Develop a Client Support Action Plan that identifies the sort of support that could be beneficial to public-sector clients, from autumn 2009 – CABE lead. Strategic objective 6: Encourage higher standards of market-led development Actions include encouraging local authorities to set clear quality-of-place ambitions in their local planning frameworks; encouraging stronger joint working early in the development process; developing and promoting the business case for investing in high-quality development. Next steps Work with partners including CABE, English Heritage and PAS to ensure that there is a comprehensive programme of support for local authorities to embed quality of place in the planning system at the local level, from spring 2010 – CLG lead. Undertake research that will aim to demonstrate the links between quality and economic benefits, from spring/summer 2010 – CLG/DCMS lead. Strategic objective 7: Strengthen quality of place skills, knowledge and capacity Actions include strengthening the government’s regional offer of advisory support for local authorities, public services and developers; encouraging local authorities

242

Design

to share planning, design, conservation and related expertise; and ensuring that councillors on planning committees have the skills and support they need. Next steps Work with CABE, HCA, ABECs and English Heritage to continue to strengthen the level of regional support so that there are the skills, knowledge and capacity to deliver quality of place, from autumn 2009 – CLG lead. Work with partners to maximise the value of the current skills, expertise and knowledge on quality of place that exists within local authorities, from spring 2010 – CLG/BIS/CABE lead. (based on CLG, 2009c, pp. 40–47 and DCMS and CLG, 2009, pp. 4–21)

12.3

Urban and rural waterfronts as public spaces The urban and rural waterfronts of the canals and navigable rivers in the UK are, at one and the same time, both the providers of green space and green infrastructure, and part of the nation’s historic built environment. They play important roles for many communities across the country, from providing peaceful green lungs in many of our towns and cities, to providing leisure activities for hundreds of thousands of anglers, boaters, cyclists and walkers, to the sustainable transport of bulk cargoes, including to and from the Olympic site in east London. Breen and Rigby (1994) described water as ‘that most magical of properties’, with a lure that is ‘powerful and universal’, and they defined ‘urban waterfronts’ as being ‘the water’s edge in cities and towns of all sizes’ (Breen and Rigby, 1994, p. 10). Figures 12.2a to c show three very different waterfronts in the UK, all of which have been enhanced with modern additions to make them more useable by the communities they serve. It is certainly the case that the presence of water in a development can make a considerable difference to the rents and values achievable, and hence the viability of the development. It is not unrealistic to expect value enhancements of between one-quarter and one-third for residential properties that enjoy views of attractive waterfronts, when compared to similar properties that lack such views. British Waterways (BW) is responsible for managing a 2,200 mile-long, 200-year-old network of canals and rivers in England, Wales and Scotland. In the introduction to its 2008–9 Annual Report BW stated, ‘Our waterways are valued because people come to see, touch and experience something that is timeless, something that is wholesome and natural, not ephemeral and affected by the latest fashion, something that engages the whole family.’ The report also noted that waterways can involve local communities ‘in sharing rather than taking, something that is free and accessible for all, and something that protects our environment for the future in a way that delights and humanises all who are involved’ (British Waterways, 2009, p. 2).

a

b

c

Figure 12.2 a The Millennium Bridge, London, a very busy route linking the City of London with the Tate Modern and the Globe Theatre on the south bank of the River Thames. b The Millennium Eye Bridge in Newcastle. The Millennium Bridge takes its place at the end of a line of distinguished bridges across the River Tyne, including the Tyne Bridge and Robert Stephenson’s High-Level Bridge. Linking Gateshead with Newcastle, the bridge serves a functional purpose as the only foot and cycle bridge across the Tyne. Its grace and engineering attract visitors from around the world (image courtesy of Kate Dodgson). c The new bridge 26A at Bollington on the Macclesfield Canal, linking the east and west sides of the canal. Following its opening in autumn 2009, takings in the waterfront café in the mill building increased by 40 per cent

244

Design

The Inland Waterways Advisory Council (IWAC)2 in its report Britain’s Inland Waterways: Balancing the needs of navigation and aquatic wildlife (IWAC, 2008) concluded that, ‘As a whole, the inland waterways system in Britain makes an important contribution to biodiversity and to aquatic wildlife in particular.’ In December 2009 the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) issued a public consultation on the future and use of Britain’s inland waterways. The report on which the consultation was based, Waterways for Everyone (Defra, 2009d), set out eight policy-related themes, forming a vision for how waterways can contribute to a wide range of public policy objectives: During 2009 British Waterways (BW) held a national debate with the public, stakeholders, staff and customers about the future of the country’s waterways and their role in modern Britain. As the last remaining part of the British Transport Commission, BW is still in public ownership, and the debate centred upon a proposal that its 200-year-old waterway network be moved out of direct state control and into a new ‘third sector’ or trust organisation. A gradual move to the voluntary ‘third’ sector would not only help with the funding problems faced by BW, but would also allow more community involvement in the running of the waterways, providing the right framework for another 200 years of success. (British Waterways website, January 2010).

12.4

The economic value of urban design Research undertaken by AMION Consulting and Taylor Young (architects and urban designers) on behalf of RENEW Northwest and the Northwest Regional Development Agency examined whether there is measurable economic evidence to show that the quality of urban design affects economic and social outcomes (Places Matter!, 2007, p. 4). The purpose of the study was to:

• • •

assess what constitutes good design; identify what are the potential benefits associated with good urban design; and present an overview of the Impact Assessment Framework, which has been developed to assess the value of urban design. (Places Matter! The Economic Value of Urban Design, 2007, p. 1)

The research team defined good urban design using the following themes:

• •

2

Character, image and response to context – places that have their own character and that are well related to their context; Spatial coherence and townscape structure – buildings that have a collective value when seen together, and create places that are distinctive and understandable;

IWAC is a public body, created in 2007 by the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, which provides independent advice to government, navigation authorities and other interested parties, on matters relating to Britain’s inland waterways. It is supported by Defra and the Scottish Government.


245

Box 12.1 How Britain’s waterways can contribute to the achieving of policy objectives (source: Defra, 2009d, paragraph 1.7) •

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

• • •

Place making and shaping: Waterways are a catalyst for urban and rural regeneration, supporting employment and creating green infrastructure that improves the quality of our lives. The improvement in our rivers and canals can bring life back to deprived areas and create a new sense of pride in local communities. The natural environment: The waterway network forms an important environmental and ecological resource, providing wildlife corridors and a diversity of aquatic and riparian habitats, but there are also challenges to waterways management from environmental pressures and legislative requirements that put pressure on resources and require close partnership working. Climate change: Waterways provide opportunities for climate-change mitigation and adaptation. Canals form part of the drainage infrastructure and can provide flood relief capacity and non-potable water for industry. Waterways also offer opportunities for city cooling and even small-scale renewable energy generation. Adaptation to climate change must become an important feature of waterways policy and planning. Cultural heritage: The river and canal network is a legacy of Britain’s past and provides a unique insight into our industrial and social history. The waterways are rich in historic buildings and structures which provide a major educational resource and a focus for regeneration and tourism. Health, well-being, recreation and sport: Inland waterways provide recreational opportunities and sporting activities close to people’s homes. The waterways can be used to encourage active lifestyles and contribute to mental well-being. Sustainable transport: There is scope for more freight and passengers to be carried on some inland waterways, particularly on estuarial waters. Greater potential is provided by waterside paths for off-road walking and cycle routes for schoolchildren, commuters, and city dwellers who want to get out into the countryside. Tourism and business development: Recreation and tourism activity on waterways supports business development by the private sector in marine and visitor economy industries, and workforce training. Fairer, stronger and more active communities: Waterways provide a range of activities suitable for all sections of the community, including an outdoor learning resource, out-of-school recreation for young people, and opportunities for volunteering. The waterways can aid social cohesion and host measures to combat social exclusion.

Building design quality and external appearance – buildings that are designed to be visually appropriate, attractive and fit for purpose, providing architectural quality; Movement, linkages, permeability and accessibility – supporting good connections and well integrated; Security and safety – places that are inherently safer by design;

246

Design

• • • •

Mixed-use, density and diversity – promoting uses that add to vitality and variety; Adaptability and flexibility – ensuring that places and buildings are robust; Sustainability and eco-design – buildings that are more energy-efficient; Design process and ongoing maintenance and management – ensuring an effective design process, starting with good analysis and ensuring ongoing care is considered. (Places Matter! The Economic Value of Urban Design, 2007, p. 7)

This definition of good design was based on the principles and messages set out in national reports and policy documents, best practice guidance and planning policies. In order to inform the development of an Impact Assessment Framework and the production of a methodology paper, the research team looked at a set of case studies that, as well as highlighting the economic value of design, demonstrated how the Impact Assessment Framework can be applied in practice. Their report makes a number of important points, including the following: Urban design thinking is important and applicable at different scales, ranging from individual buildings to small and large development plots and sites. Urban design thinking can be applied to streets or urban quarters, to whole towns or cities and even at a borough, district or regional level. Whilst the specific issues might change and the level of detail differ, the application of the basic principles can be usefully applied across all levels and scales of place making to create higher-quality places. (Places Matter! The Economic Value of Urban Design, 2007, p. 6) On the basis that urban design thinking can be applied at different scales, so too can the economic value of good design. The definition of economic value, as applied to the research, is used in a broad sense as a measure of welfare or utility, which incorporates economic, social and environmental considerations. If economics is concerned with the allocation of scarce resources in order to maximise utility, then it can also be viewed as a means to secure the highest possible net social welfare. The market system reconciles the allocation of the factors of production and commodities through the price mechanism. The economically efficient level of output is where marginal social benefits equal marginal social costs. The report goes on to explain that while, in many situations, the equilibrium outputs (including good urban design) determined through the market mechanism will be the economically efficient level of output, there are circumstances in which market prices are a poor indicator of social costs and benefits. These situations include:

• •

Where market failures occur – an example of market failure is the negative externalities associated with bad design. This may produce adverse environmental and economic impacts as developers seek to cut costs and absolve themselves of any future responsibility, or they are simply not aware or do not fully understand the benefits of good design. Where government failures occur – the government itself may not efficiently allocate goods and/or resources.


•

247

Where goods are not traded in markets – because good design can be seen as a public good, where the consumption of a good by one individual does not reduce the amount of the good available for consumption by others but, without public-sector intervention, the market may not provide a sufficient supply. (based on Places Matter! The Economic Value of Urban Design, 2007, p. 11)

Where one or a combination of these situations exists, public-sector intervention could be required in order to improve justice or fairness in the way goods and services are distributed. Furthermore, the public sector invests regeneration funding in projects in order to reverse social and physical decay, as well as economic decline. Consequently, the ‘return’ it is seeking from its investment is normally in the form of economic, social and/or environmental benefits, including:

• • •

economic – job creation, business formation and confidence building / market renewal; social – community facilities and educational or health-related benefits; and environmental – high-quality design and sustainability.

The report then considers methods of estimating economic value and the added value of good urban design, before describing the economic, social and environmental impacts. These it divides into the following categories: Economic value of urban design i. Economic performance and exchange value, including improvements in occupational rent and capital value, and market attractiveness; ii. Operational performance, including whole life costs and user performance; iii. Area regeneration, including economic performance of the local area, image and external perception. Social value of urban design i. ii. iii. iv. v. vi. vii.

Civic pride and sense of identity; Place vitality; Social inclusion and equity; Social interaction and participation; Community safety and crime reduction; Health benefits; Access to goods, services and amenities.

Environmental value i. ii. iii. iv.

Heritage value; Energy efficiency and resource use; Reduced waste and pollution; Ecological value.

The benefits derived through these three categories are summarised in Table 12.1.

Table 12.1 Summary of the benefits of good design (source: Places Matter! The Economic Value of Urban Design, 2007, p. 23)

Strong evidence of relationship to design

Economic benefits

Social benefits

Environmental benefits

Provides land savings and better efficiency in the use of space

Improves natural surveillance and security

Lowers use of cars for local trips

Utilises infrastructure more effectively

Increases choice and access to facilities and amenities

Encourages walking and cycling

Attracts additional visitors and activity

Better meets the needs of users

Helps achieve greater efficiency in use of resources

Encourages greater use of public space Increases participation in community and cultural activities

Evidence of relationship to design

Increases viability of local facilities and businesses

Promotes greater levels of physical activity

Positive impact on the image of an area

Increases diversity and duration of use of public space

Increases commercial property values Improves staff productivity and satisfaction Reduces whole-life costs, including management and security costs Improves long-term economic performance of an area

Enhances convenience Encourages commitment to undertaking further improvements

Enhances corporate image/brand

Improves sense of personal safety

Contributes to area revitalisation/ regeneration

Positive impact on physical and mental health

Improves business performance and competitiveness

Reduces levels of crime and fear of crime

Increases residential property values

Helps to improve patient recovery rates

Leads to greater land values

Increases sense of community

Increases vitality of local businesses Helps to provide energy and infrastructure savings

Suggested relationship to design

Helps to improve social relations and cohesion

Reduces expenditure on transportation Attracts highly skilled workers Assists in maintaining functionality and vitality Helps to create distinctiveness within an area Linked to concentration of knowledge and innovative activity Reduces commercial vacancy rates

Reduces harmful emissions and pollutants Improves energy efficiency and sustainability Reduces reliance on vehicular transport Lowers levels of energy consumption

Assists in fostering social engagement and participation Beneficial impact on educational performance Enhances sense of identity and civic pride

Enhances and protects biodiversity

Improves people’s well-being

Promotes conservation of non-renewable resources

Promotes active community engagement Increases choice of places and experiences Improves area vitality Enhances social inclusion by providing equity of opportunity


249

All sectors of the community can benefit from good design, including investors, developers, occupiers, designers, the local authority and the wider community, although it can also result in increased financial costs as well as added value. These costs may result from:

• • • • • • • • •

more challenging or complicated building format – height/massing; increased specification of construction and finish materials; more sophisticated or complex construction methods; higher environmental standards and better environmental performance; more open spaces or streets within the scheme; more or better infrastructure; time – to get the design right; skills – namely, the cost of using suitably qualified designers; and cultural change and initial time costs as developers leave their comfort zones. (Source: Places Matter! The Economic Value of Urban Design, 2007, p. 25).

Conversely, there may be even greater costs associated with bad design. Although the benefits of good design may pay back only the initial investment over time, poorly designed schemes will perform significantly less well over the lifetime of a development, and the impact of bad design goes beyond financial implications. Poorly designed development can also have a detrimental impact on the lives of individuals and communities. In addition, poor design can lead to development that is environmentally unsustainable and inefficient over its projected lifespan (Places Matter! The Economic Value of Urban Design, 2007, p. 26). In order to find a means of quantifying benefits of good design, the research team developed the Assessment Framework drawing upon existing research and goodpractice guidance produced by CABE and others. The Assessment Framework comprises two interrelated components:

• •

the urban design assessment – a structured assessment of the key urban design aspects of a scheme; and the economic value assessment – this is based upon the results of the urban design assessment and a review of contextual conditions, trends and evidence.

The additional impact (referred to as ‘additionality’) of good urban design is derived through a comparison of the proposed design scheme with a lowerquality design option (referred to as the ‘reference case’). Nine key aspects or themes of good urban design have been identified and a scoring framework has been developed to assess each of these aspects of a scheme’s urban design. The nine aspects or themes are:

• • • •

townscape, coherence and collective value site layout efficiency and format design and external appearance of buildings image and branding through scheme design quality

250

Design

• • • • •

sustainable design and development aspects safe and inclusive design space and use attributes of buildings public realm and open space movement, connections and integration. (Places Matter! The Economic Value of Urban Design, 2007, p. 26)

The conclusion of the report was that good design does add value and can lead to a number of economic, social and environmental benefits. It found that there is evidence that good design can help to stimulate the wider regeneration of an area, as well as increase property values. The best-practice review carried out as part of the research informed the development of an analytical framework for assessing ‘urban design quality’ of a place or development. The framework is a tool that can help people to understand more objectively urban design performance and can be used pre-development or for real places, of which the report provides a number of case studies. The tool can be used to assess and validate urban design quality at a number of different scales, ranging from individual buildings to large developments and places. In 2009 the study team revisited the subject of good design in the light of the changed economic climate since the original report was published. The main conclusions of the later report (Places Matter!, 2009) were:

• • • • • • •

The recession and associated reduction in demand within the commercial and residential property markets has placed pressure on developers to cut costs, which has led to lower levels of investment in design. As such there is a key role for the public sector to ensure that poor design is avoided wherever possible. This will involve making sure that developers and wider stakeholders are fully aware of the long-term costs associated with poor design, as well as the benefits of good design. Recognising that there are elements of good design that are cost-neutral will be an important part of maintaining high standards of design, particularly in an environment where there are significant cost constraints. Despite the economic downturn, the importance of design is still widely recognised, although there is still a need to ensure people understand that design is more than just about how a building looks. As with the original Economic Value of Design report, good design is seen as having a positive impact on rent and capital values and, in particular, occupancy and take-up rates, as well as the overall market attractiveness of an area. Some see design as even more important during the recession, owing to the increasingly selective requirements of both occupiers and property investors and the competitive advantage good design can provide. However, others argue that the importance of price has increased, potentially at the expense of good design, and it must be recognised that there will often be costs attached to achieving a higher specification and standard of design; and case-study analysis suggests that good design can still add value and help schemes to ‘weather’ the effects of the recession, although the benefits of design will not always feed through into the wider area.


251

Both the 2007 and the 2009 reports and the Assessment Framework can be downloaded from the Places Matter! website: www.placesmatter.co.uk/resources.

12.5

Summary The purpose of this chapter has been to introduce the reader to the importance of quality in the design and construction of public places. This is already well established on the UK Government’s policy agenda and it is likely to develop an even higher profile in coming years. Perhaps the most important points to remember when designing public spaces are that they should be attractive, places where people feel safe and want to spend their time. They should not appear to be there as an ‘afterthought’, filling a piece of land or part of a development that is otherwise seen as being difficult to develop. Good design extends beyond the overall general impression provided by a public space; it should also include the quality and durability of the materials from which it is constructed, as well as the maintenance aspects. Quality public spaces can engender a sense of place, which people feel proud to own and be a part of. They can make valuable contributions to the economy of the areas in which they are located and have immense value in area-wide regeneration projects. The value of the contribution made by public-realm works may be difficult to measure in the short term, as direct financial outputs and their impact is usually better judged as longer-term outcomes.

12.6

Checklist

• • • • •

Do the public-realm works in the development form an integral part of the project and its design, or are they just using up an undevelopable piece of land? Do they have any significance in terms of local culture or heritage? Who will use the public-realm areas and in what ways? Are they safe, secure and well designed with relevant and durable materials? What is the broader contribution the public-realm areas make to development itself and to the wider locality?

13 13.1

Designing out Crime Jennifer P. Hall

Introduction This chapter outlines a number of key issues relating to the use of design in regeneration and development as a means to prevent crime. The chapter should be read as an introduction to various topics, providing inspiration to further reading around the complex issues raised. Five main topic areas are covered, identifying some implications of crime preventative design considerations on regeneration. The theoretical basis for crime prevention is outlined in the first subsection of the chapter. Key elements that form the foundation of the use of design as a tool to combat crime are discussed. The following section deals with the role of the local authority in preparing and enforcing robust policy to promote design-based approaches to reducing crime. Advice on crime preventative design is given in the next section, which outlines key UK-based guidance. The principles of urban design are discussed, and the practical implications of designing for crime prevention are summarised. Two UK-based case studies of crime preventative design in regeneration comprise the following section, illustrating how guidance can be applied to good effect in real-life situations within a development. Local authority policies for each study are compared, as are the physical manifestations of crime preventative design within these developments. The final main section discusses the financial costs and social implications of crime preventative physical improvement. A summary highlights the salient points of the chapter.

13.2

The basis for crime preventative design The theoretical evolution of crime preventative design has created five interrelated strands, which operate in parallel to inform contemporary design standards and advice (Schneider and Kitchen, 2007, chapter 2). It is important to gain an understanding of these key lines of discourse in order to interpret the logic of prescribed policy and given advice. The first of these strands is the concept of defensible space, which relates to territorial control, access control and boundary marking: that is, protecting and defending an area from intrusion. The second strand, crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED), is mutually influential and


Designing out Crime

253

its development has been closely related to concepts of defensible space. The principles of CPTED include:

• • • •

natural surveillance; access control; territorial reinforcement; and proper placement of land uses (Schneider and Kitchen, 2007, p. 24).

CPTED is endorsed by Secured by Design, discussed later in this chapter, and here demonstrates a clear relationship between the theory of crime prevention design and its practice. The third strand, situational crime prevention, is broader in scope than theories of defensible space and CPTED, introducing psychological elements to crime prevention. Ideas behind situational crime prevention understand criminal decisions to be based on limited rationality. The task of the urban designer is to reduce the opportunity for crime within the built environment. Environmental criminology, or pattern theory, forms the fourth strand. Similarly to situational crime prevention, environmental criminology focuses on the role of the environment as a facilitating element of criminal activity. In this theory, environmental cues provide the catalyst for a pattern of criminal activity that can take place only when all elements are present; the environment is a fundamental aspect of criminal activity, serving both as its catalyst and its location. Target hardening, the fifth strand of crime preventative design, seeks to protect built forms from criminal activity through practical steps to physically strengthen defences; it involves the use of strengthened glass, toughened walls and burglar alarms, as examples. The choice of action to protect a development may be prescribed to an extent by policy and guidance, but the foundation of this advice is drawn from these key theoretical strands. The justification for any specific form of action is therefore located within significant existing bodies of research, reflecting the multidisciplinary approach that informs crime preventative discourse. There is scope, therefore, for different guidance to be complementary or contradictory, to evolve and change or to be discredited over time as discourses progress. Research, policy documents and guidance are of fundamental importance to facilitate local planning authorities in determining their own subjective response to crime preventative design.

13.3 The role of the local authority in promoting design-based approaches to reducing crime Since publication of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and subsequent commentary from The Urban Task Force (1999), significant progress has been made in bringing security in design to the forefront of planning considerations. Policies and guidance for designing out crime are prescribed and enforced under the acceptance that they have a positive impact, though it is difficult to attribute changes to planning design improvements. Evaluation has noted progress in

254

Design

perceptions of local safety, though this is linked to increased supervision measures and investment in addressing antisocial behaviour, rather than design improvements (Urban Task Force, 2005, p. 10). At the outset of development, consideration must be given to reducing the potential for crime. Crime preventative design is of importance to all forms of development, both residential and non-residential, and within different contexts. Perceptions of crime and safety may influence the attractiveness of developments to end-users, be they residential tenants or owners, office tenants or industrial users. In selecting a suitable property within a market, such perceptions can influence preferential selection of one development over another. Necessarily, then, crime prevention must be incorporated into the design of new developments in order to promote competitive marketability. Subjective fear of crime may manifest through the opinions and behaviours of individuals, and may be confirmed through tangible means such as insurance premiums. Detailed case studies illustrating the application of crime preventative design within different contexts can be found in Safer Places: The planning system and crime prevention (ODPM, 2004b, Annex 1, pp. 53–85). Policy is set at the national level through Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development, supporting the understanding that ‘poor planning can result in a legacy for current and future generations of run-down town centres, unsafe and dilapidated housing, crime and disorder, and the loss of our finest countryside to development’ (ODPM 2005a, p. 2). The emphasis, however, is on local authorities to enforce security in design through the Local Development Framework System. Preparation of urban design policy at the local level is heavily influenced by the licensing scheme and guidance of Secured by Design, in line with sustainable development objectives. The sustainability justification adds a further angle to supporting crime preventative design; the goal of reducing crime is justified in part through the sustainability agenda. ‘Through the introduction of appropriate design features that facilitate natural surveillance and create a sense of ownership and responsibility for every part of the development, criminal and anti-social behaviour within the curtilage or grounds of an estate can be deterred’ (Secured by Design, 2004, p. 2). This sense of ownership and responsibility is seen as intrinsic in promoting the longevity of developments and the sustainability of communities. Sustainable communities are communities which succeed now, economically, socially and environmentally, and respect the needs of future generations. They are well-designed places where people feel safe and secure; where crime and disorder, or the fear of crime, doesn’t undermine quality of life or community cohesion. (ODPM, 2004a, p. 7) The scope of responsibility of local planning authorities includes the prescription and enforcement of crime preventative measures through development activity. Intrinsic in their design, local development framework documents ‘should seek to … promote communities which are inclusive, healthy, safe and crime-free, whilst respecting the diverse needs of communities and the special needs of particular sectors of the community’ (ODPM, 2005a, p. 11). This holistic approach

Designing out Crime

255

reflects fundamental paradigm shifts within the new planning system, and the shift of focus onto communities living within developments. The planning system is no longer confined to stewardship of the built environment; it must take an active role in considering the wide-ranging influences upon individuals and communities that development might create. Within this rhetoric, local planning authorities are obliged to consider the potential for crime and opportunities for crime prevention through the design of new development. This necessarily influences private developers to take security and crime issues into account when preparing proposals, in order that they might secure planning permissions. It is the responsibility of local authorities to create and enforce effective and robust policies to ensure that crime reductive and preventative design is employed within new developments. It is through the appropriate application and enforcement of such policies that local authorities guide developers to ‘create safe and accessible environments where crime and disorder or fear of crime does not undermine quality of life or community cohesion’ (ODPM, 2005a, pp. 14–15). Local authorities call the tune; in order that planning proposals progress smoothly, developers must play along. This is to the wider benefit of end-users of developments and the communities upon which they may impact. The expanded role and responsibilities of the local planning authority assume an expansive skills base that local authorities may readily draw upon to realise new development objectives. Such may not be the case in practice. Staffing levels, skills and resource capacities of local authorities vary across geographical areas. Some planning authorities may not hold the necessary skills to interpret crime reductive and preventative design. Likewise, a smaller authority may simply not have the resources to take on this additional role. Potential is created for policies to be both prepared and enforced in an ad hoc and irregular manner across different local authorities, dependent on the resource and skills status of each department. The effects of such activity may contradict sustainability objectives, through developers selectively exploiting weak policy in some areas to gain permission for sub-standard designs.

13.4 Advice on crime preventative design: an outline of UK guidance In seeking to create and enforce appropriate and adequate crime reductive and crime preventative design, local authorities are supported by various guidance documents and agencies. The combined expertise and understanding available through national planning guidance and Safer Places serve as a valuable reference point from which to consider the principles of designing out crime. National guidance is, of course, key to policy formulation, as design controls are both legislated and prescribed at this level. Safer Places: The planning system and crime prevention is the key national document explicitly seeking to address crime reductive and preventative design (ODPM, 2004b). From the introduction of Safer Places, the sustainability agenda is highlighted as justification behind crime reductive and preventative design. Under the sustainability umbrella, the document considers financial viability of a scheme. The

256

Design

development stage is the most cost-effective point at which to install crime preventative measures; retrospective amendments to a scheme would be considerably more expensive. To enhance the sustainability of a scheme, then, consideration of crime and safety issues must be frontloaded into the development process. This reflects once more the emphasis on early consideration of community impacts of development that is promoted through the new planning system, in line with the sustainability agenda. The most useful application of Safer Places is as a practically informed reference source to provide advice from the national government on the design standards and considerations that must be included within development proposals. Through considered identification of desirable qualities in design and provision of a ‘toolkit’ of advice for practitioners, the document is intended for practical use to assist professionals in ‘creat[ing] environments which people want to occupy and use, creating a strong and positive sense of communal identity’ (ODPM, 2004b, p. 7). Key attributes of sustainable (read ‘safe’) communities are identified as general and descriptive prompts for consideration in preparing plans:

• • • • • • •

‘Access and movement: places with well-defined routes, spaces and entrances that provide for convenient movement without compromising security; Structure: places that are structured so that different uses do not cause conflict; Surveillance: places where all publicly accessible spaces are overlooked; Ownership: places that promote a sense of ownership, respect, territorial responsibility and community; Physical protection: places that include necessary, well-designed security features; Activity: places where the level of human activity is appropriate to the location and creates a reduced risk of crime and a sense of safety at all times; and Management and maintenance: places that are designed with management and maintenance in mind, to discourage crime in the present and the future.’ (ODPM, 2004b, p. 13)

Lacking prescription, the advice presented in Safer Places could be criticised for promoting design standards that are indistinct and immeasurable. To what extent should the guidance be followed? How closely must the guidance be followed in order to create a safe and sustainable environment for communities? What is the minimum that a developer must achieve to meet approval for designing out crime? Safer Places clearly states that the guidance offered is intended to provide prompts for consideration at the development stage; it remains unclear what precisely is required from developers. This degree of flexibility provides the opportunity for reflective design, interpretive of local requirements, demands and aesthetic considerations. Yet it also provides scope for developers to make cursory attempts to tick ‘safe places’ boxes in order to gain permission without any serious consideration of the subjective reality of the local area. Inappropriate development may result in the form of ‘over the top’ security measures, or ill-

Designing out Crime

257

thought-out design features. For practical examples on how national guidance might be effectively followed, further information can be found from other reputable sources, most notably Secured by Design (2004). Secured by Design represents a corporate effort to establish practically informed design standards, created and owned by the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO). Identification by ACPO of preferred design specifications supports both local authorities and developers in creating safe, attractive and sustainable developments. Design guides are produced for a variety of different building types and situations, and go into detail with regards to specific areas of concern in the built environment. Examples of elements of the built environment that are considered include public access, lighting and car parking. One key flaw with the design guides is their vagueness and subjectivity for some key features. Whilst in some areas of concern specific design standards are referred to, in other areas the advice given is largely descriptive. For example, advice given for street lighting on adopted and unadopted roads states that designs must conform to BS5489. This is clear, and will be straightforward for developers to follow. For block boundaries to estates, however, the advice given is less clear: ‘The estate layout should provide each block with a clearly defined defensible space, and fencing where appropriate’ (Secured by Design, 2004, p. 2). Use of the designer’s own subjective interpretation of what is appropriate in each case makes the guidance significantly less robust and vulnerable to misuse. Largely written-word rather than images, the advice may appear unclear and ambiguous. The skill of both the developer’s and the local authority’s urban designers, as well as the strength of the local authority’s policies and their ability to properly enforce them, are significantly influential factors in determining the physical manifestations of such guidance ‘on the ground’. In addition to facilitating urban designers and developers in preparing plans with a greater likelihood of approval by local authorities, following the guidance and advice of Secured by Design also offers a marketing angle for developers. More than 350 member organisations have had certain design specifications assessed and approved by ACPO. This permits developers to promote developments that utilise approved specifications with the ‘Secured by Design’ logo and through use of the term ‘police-preferred specification’. Such accreditation could make developments more attractive to end-users when looking to purchase or move into a new home. Developments may sell more quickly, or may even demand a higher market price. Referring back to the financial justification for designing out crime, within the sustainability agenda, here presents another financial benefit of proper consideration of designing for crime reduction and prevention.

13.5

Case studies in crime preventative design The two case studies presented below describe two regenerated sites, showing how local planning design guidance has been applied to create secure urban environments. The two case studies are in different areas, and so different local policies

258

Design

apply. Each case study will identify the relevant local design policies and, using photographs of the development, will critique the outcomes of policy on the ground. 13.5.1 Wharf Close, Manchester Areas around Piccadilly Station in Manchester were heavily impacted upon by economic changes leading to de-industrialisation in the late 1970s. Previously populated by numerous active industrial premises, vast areas fell largely into disuse and were considered derelict by the mid-1980s. This sets the scene for the plethora of brownfield sites, seen by some as an opportunity to reinvigorate the economy of the city centre through revitalising those areas. The first regeneration project undertaken in this part of inner-city Manchester was Piccadilly Village; see Syms (1993). Conceived when the ACPO Secured by Design scheme was in its infancy, the aim of this mixed-use project was to bring people into this deserted part of the city, restore a section of the Ashton Canal and provide permeability through the site, linking the canal towpath with the nearby road network. Natural surveillance was to have been provided through the retail and craft units that were central to the scheme, but those uses failed to materialise. This meant that during the day, when most residents were at work, few people were in the development, other than those working in two office buildings. The result was a spate of daytime burglaries, mostly affecting ground-floor properties, followed by a number of night-time car thefts. Inevitably the response to these crimes was retrospective hardening of the perimeter, with the introduction of both pedestrian and vehicular gates; even then several car thefts were attempted by ramming the gates. Ten years later the nearby Wharf Close development, granted planning permission by Manchester City Council in 1998, provided a later example typifying the residential-led form of development which now dominates the area. Exploiting proximity to the Ashton Canal as a semi-natural urban feature to increase attractiveness of the development, Wharf Close comprises 56 two-bed flats and associated car parking. Additional landscaping to the boundary of the site was included as part of the development, including upgrading of the canal towpath. The current Unitary Development Plan (UDP) for Manchester was originally adopted in July 1995, and so was in effect when this development was proposed. The UDP does not deal with crime preventative measures, although supplementary planning guidance (SPG) document ‘A Guide to Development in Manchester’ offers some guidance on design. Many apartments in the Wharf Close development are owned on a buy-to-let basis, a model which has been replicated in nearby similar developments. The approach to secure design in the case of this development is now discussed around various points identified in images. Figure 13.1 shows one key frontage of the site, from a main access road. The building is five storeys high, with a number of entry points. Dwellings feature small windows, some with patio doors opening out onto a Juliette balcony. The area is populated with street furniture to an extent, with modern bins and non-standard street lights. Small brick walls and metalwork fences form a boundary around the development.

Designing out Crime

259

Figure 13.1 Wharf Close as viewed from Store Street

Figure 13.2 Wharf Close: Store Street stairwell entrance

The area around the development is largely similar residential blocks, plus a vacant site possibly scheduled for development. Owing to the homogeneity of development in this area, users tend to populate the site at similar times of day. In this instance, during typical office hours the development area is fairly deserted. Workers on nearby sites, service providers and students are some exceptions to this. However, a perception that the building might be empty during the day could constitute an environmental cue; apartments in the development might be easy targets. Also, as it is a multi-occupation building with a number of shared entrances, users might not consider it unusual to see someone unfamiliar around the development, allowing would-be criminals easier movement within the development. At the corner entrance shown in Figure 13.2, frosted glass is used to prevent direct sight into the property, yet allow light in. This may be a form of situational crime prevention; reducing the opportunity for crime as property and users of

260

Design

the development cannot be viewed from outside. It could also constitute a form of target hardening, as toughened glass is typically used. Other target-hardening practices are visible from this angle; burglar alarms feature on ground-floor properties and external security lights can be seen at different levels. Gating the vehicular entrance to the development reflects theoretical discussions of defensible space and is similar to the retro-fitted security gates on the earlier Piccadilly Village development. The gates are used here to create territory that can be protected by insiders and that prevents access to outsiders; see Figure 13.3. The internal space is defended from criminal activity by the gate. Restricting pedestrian and vehicle access to permitted users ensures that the space functions as per its intended use by residents and owners. This is largely reliant, however, on the maintenance of the gate and the residents themselves acting to ensure that they close the gate properly. As can be seen, in this instance the magnetic gate does not automatically close, which makes the space vulnerable to intrusion.

Figure 13.3 Wharf Close gates, serving as an entrance for pedestrians and vehicles

Another interesting feature of this space is that it creates natural surveillance over the car park. Residents’ properties overlook the space, and this can deter criminals as their activities are not perceived to be hidden. The use of Juliette balconies serves two purposes (Figure 13.4). First, they protect users from potentially falling when opening their patio doors. Second, and in the case of the ground floor, they form another target-hardening feature, making the patio door less penetrable to potential break-ins. One useful point to note is the use of rhythmic repetition of this feature vertically. Although the balconies used are fairly nondescript and non-decorative, this repetition adds richness to the external fabric of the development. Figure 13.5 illustrates that residents of Wharf Close might have good cause to believe that the level of overlooking from the public footpath into their properties presents a security risk. In broad daylight, and when residents are likely to be at

Designing out Crime

261

Figure 13.4 Wharf Close balcony design

Figure 13.5 Wharf Close: ground-floor residential properties

work, curtains are left closed to prevent people looking in. Brick walls and metalwork gates act to physically protect the properties, yet there is evident a form of situational crime prevention led by residents themselves – reducing the opportunity for crime by hiding valuables from sight. The external grassed areas and paved areas visible in Figures 13.4 and 13.5 also raise concern. It is not clear to whom these areas belong, and that could present

262

Design

a risk in terms of a lack of a sense of ownership. Maintenance issues might also result. This could lead to degradation of the urban environment, making the development appear more vulnerable. Figure 13.6 shows an alley that has been created as part of the development, running alongside the public towpath on the Ashton Canal. As with the spaces depicted in Figure 13.5, issues of ownership and management could create concerns, especially as the railings between the development and the canal towpath do little to engender a sense of security. Indeed the alley might constitute an environmental cue to criminal activity, although it offers some protection from overlooking: but it is not well lit. As it is accessible from the canal towpath, it could provide an escape route from incidents within ground-floor properties.

Figure 13.6 Wharf Close: towpath improvements and alley

Wharf Close Summary The development features appropriate measures to reduce the potential for crime in the main, though there are elements of concern that weaken its defences. The ground-floor residential dwellings appear most vulnerable to crime, owing to considerable overlooking and the proximity of a common footpath. Measures could be retro-fitted to this development to improve these aspects but, owing to the overall design of the building, reducing overlooking and vulnerability of the ground-floor units would be difficult to achieve. Any meaningful action would probably have the effect of visually turning the development into a fortress. There is an important lesson to be learned here, as issues such as these need to be dealt with at conception, otherwise problems could persist in the long term. 13.5.2 Residential development and car park, Sale The site is located in the town centre of Sale, in the suburbs of Greater Manchester. The town is home to workers based in Sale itself, and those who commute to work in areas such as Manchester, Trafford and Warrington. The development

Designing out Crime

263

comprises a multi-storey car park providing 460 spaces on 10 split levels, and there are two residential blocks (six and seven storeys high) housing 45 residential units. Planning permission was granted by Trafford Metropolitan Council in 2006, making this a relatively new development. Thirty-seven of the forty-five residential units are described as low-cost affordable housing, and they are managed by a Registered Social Landlord (RSL). At the time of application and permission, SPG 24: Crime and Security was in use by the local authority. The policies in the document are practical guidelines for preventing the opportunity for crime and target hardening, but neglect to consider the aesthetics of the measures identified. The case deals solely with the residential aspect of the scheme, for comparison with Wharf Close. Images below illustrate how the design of the development sought to meet security objectives.

Figure 13.7 Sale development: frontage from Northenden Road

Figure 13.7 shows one key frontage of the residential element of the development. Deck access provides access to the flats, which are situated above a sublevel car park. Deck access can lead to problems when common walkways are not seen to be owned or to be the responsibility of residents, and must be maintained by a third party. A lack of residential responsibility for common areas can lead to environmental degradation of these areas, creating a sense of hostility and insecurity. The lower-level residents’ car park ensures that no windows look out onto the tram line at ground level. The proximity of the tram line prohibits overlooking into the flats from other developments, other than fleeting glimpses from the trams. The creation of private space through fencing permits residents to take ownership over part of the development. However, Figure 13.8 also shows how fencing has been used to create a narrow, unlit pathway in the middle of the development. Furthermore, adjacent to the wall and between the first garden fence another space is created, which might be an alley or may simply be dead space. These features could be cues for criminal activity, or likewise could provide the setting

264

Design

Figure 13.8 Sale: private residential gardens and fenced alleys

Figure 13.9 Sale: communal private open space

for criminal activity. In creating defensible private space (gardens or yards), fencing has created leftover urban forms that could increase the potential for crime within common areas of the development. An insignificant amount of open space has been created (Figure 13.9), and perhaps in a bid to maintain the area, gravel has been laid and small shrubs planted. The area was probably an afterthought and there is no access to it from outside the development. While the space is truly defensible, it is both communal and set aside from the flats themselves. Quite probably the space will go unused, and as such could create the environment for crime if defences (gates and walls) become breached in some way. The open space created could be the result of a difficult-shaped plot to redevelop, and likewise it may have counted towards local authority objectives. It offers little to the residents in terms of a pleasant area in which to relax, get fresh air or socialise. Exhaust fumes from the car park make this small space quite unpleasant.

Designing out Crime

265

The gate in Figure 13.10 represents target hardening and the gating of a community, issues reflected in the Wharf Close case. Issues of maintenance likewise apply. The design of this gate is much less attractive or residential-looking than that used in Wharf Close; indeed, it looks like the access to a prison, rather than modern apartments! Little is offered aesthetically to users. The first-floor balcony is at risk of intrusion from access granted by the small office to the centre of Figure 13.11. This could present an environmental cue for

Figure 13.10 Sale: one entrance gate into the residential development

Figure 13.11 Sale: balconies and windows fronting a concrete wall

266

Design

criminal activity. Otherwise, these balconies are inaccessible to users of the car park or members of the public, and so the target is hardened against crime. The main design concern with this side of the development is that the proximity of the balcony edge to the plain concrete wall of the car park is approximately two metres. Very little natural light is available to apartments, except those at the edges of the development, and then only through small windows. The view from the balconies is oppressive and unappealing. While the residential units in this case are arguably more secure than those in Wharf Close, the design outcomes are much less appropriate. Residential development and car park summary In terms of crime prevention, the residential element of the development is well hardened against criminal activity, but it achieves nothing in terms of design quality. Little is offered in the way of environmental cues or the prevention of opportunities for crime. It does appear that the development has been treated as an entirely defensible space, and one that would be difficult to penetrate. There is, however, a concern with the deck access layout of the flats, and the features of the available common space. There are a number of design concerns with this development; the aesthetics are very disappointing, and are unlikely to be attractive to end-users. The high proportion of affordable units may indicate that the developer and local authority have entered into a negotiation process by which design defects have been overlooked in favour of creating dwellings to house those in the greatest need, and to meet affordable housing targets. It is certainly not a course of action to be advocated. 13.5.3 Comparisons between the case studies Neither of the case studies described above shows ‘best practice’ in terms of design quality, although they go some way towards producing secure environments for their occupiers. The tools used by both sites to reduce crime are similar in many respects; both have attempted to reduce the potential for crime, to harden the target and to defend the space created. Yet the outcomes are significantly different in terms of how secure they are perceived to feel, and how aesthetically pleasing they are. Arguably, the Wharf Close site provides greater opportunity for criminal activity to occur, through the creation of alleys with the potential for public access and through ground-floor apartments with overlooked windows and patios. Yet this site is aesthetically more pleasing, with notable attempts to make security design more appealing, such as the rhythmic use of Juliette balconies. The excessive fencing, central alley and high brick wall featured at the location in Sale do not look attractive, and could be seen as overkill. This might create a perception that the area is particularly dangerous and that the development requires such a level of defence to protect its residents, which could be further off-putting to end-users. The case studies highlight the importance of aesthetics in crime preventative design. This issue is one focus of Design Against Crime, a research initiative led by the Design Council, Sheffield Hallam University and the University of Salford

Designing out Crime

267

(www.designagainstcrime.org). Socially responsible design initiatives seek to make various aspects of everyday life safer yet still attractive and, hence, are in demand from consumers. The notion of attractiveness, of course, is highly subjective. In terms of making socially responsible design attractive to business, the research centre promotes the financial benefits to business from incorporating appropriate design in development. Rather than a policy hoop developers must jump through to gain planning permission, designing against crime should be seen as a valuable opportunity to improve the saleability and sustainability of developments through the creation of attractive and safe built environments.

13.6

New developments and crime In the development of more affordable, ‘lower-end’ developments, costs may be kept down through reduced attention to detail in urban design. Crime reduction and prevention through appropriate design may not receive the same level of consideration in less expensive developments as in those targeting other markets, as additional design skills and time are required. The potential impacts of less well designed but more affordable developments could create a higher potential for incidence of crime. Whether that is a question of displacement or comparative incidence is an interesting point of discussion; certainly research into the psychological elements of crime prevention implies that criminal activity may not be displaced – rather, if opportunity for it is eradicated at one location, then incidence of crime is in fact reduced overall (Schneider and Kitchen, 2007, chapter 2). Comparative advances in crime prevention might therefore serve to create the potential for pockets of criminal activity in more deprived areas where design permits the opportunities for criminal activity; existing research explores the negative impacts of poor design on disadvantaged groups (Newman, 1996). If we accept that good design can reduce spatial incidence of crime, the choice not to apply crime preventative design standards within developments might promote such developments as suitable locations for criminal activity to take place. Therefore, for disadvantaged groups who are priced out of some developments and into others, variation in the application of design standards may operate to reproduce disadvantage through creating a higher likelihood of criminal activity. Spatially fixed pockets of disadvantage can be created through the ill consideration of crime reductive and preventative design. The physical improvement of some areas comparatively disadvantages those areas that do not benefit from development. This can have the effect of both widening the disadvantage gap and ghettoising disadvantaged groups. This issue is recognised as impacting upon sections of society throughout the UK, creating and maintaining deprived neighbourhoods. Good design standards in new developments can expose the weaknesses of existing poor design and can make areas with concentrations of disadvantaged groups increasingly vulnerable to crime. ‘Families in more disadvantaged urban areas feel under immense pressure from crime, youth disorder, environmental decay, traffic pollution, unsupervised poorly maintained parks and a loss of local shops, play spaces and other services.

268

Design

These neighbourhood problems are intensified through concentrations of disadvantaged households including lone-parent families, households with no earners and those with poor educational backgrounds, particularly in the large council estates that still dominate many inner-city neighbourhoods’ (Urban Task Force, 2005, p. 10). In the Labour Party’s urban-renaissance rhetoric, areas of social housing are ‘often counter posed against the vision of a revitalised urban citizenship, in which “responsible” and “orderly” communities are involved in the management of their neighbourhoods’ (Atkinson and Helms, 2007, p. 125). Such rhetoric infers issues of disadvantage as a result, at least in part, of the actions and behaviours of those who are disadvantaged. Were one to accept this rhetoric, such a line of argument would logically support the role of planning and urban design in improving the built environment to influence behaviour. This relates back once more to environmental criminology, with the built form providing a space in which criminal acts may be stimulated or suppressed through urban design. This is not to present an argument against crime preventative design. ‘There is considerable evidence to suggest that offenders are not programmed to switch from one target to the next when thwarted’ – implying that application of good design standards in one development does not disadvantage another. (Schneider and Kitchen, 2007, p. 34). There is evidence to suggest that, in fact, the improved safety measures employed in new developments may have spill-over effects to benefit adjacent existing sites (Schneider and Kitchen, 2007). Yet we cannot expect to adopt a two-tier system with, on the one hand, affordable and insecure areas, and on the other, higher-end and safe developments; the hope of a contagion effect of the benefits from new developments acting on existing developments is reminiscent of the largely discredited ‘trickle down’ effects elsewhere in development. ‘The need for affordable, accessible “social” housing in cities does not go away,’ nor does the need to represent any other sections of the market through appropriate residential provision (Urban Task Force, 2005, p. 10). It may be most appropriate to develop adequately robust guidance and policies to ensure that all new developments meet basic crime preventative standards, to avoid a situation in which secure design benefits only the wealthy, living in comparatively less disadvantaged areas. Arguably, it is areas influenced by concentrations of development that would benefit most from advancements in crime reductive and preventative design. Further to design advances in new developments, there is an argument in favour of retro-fitting crime reductive and preventative design into existing areas. This would be justified through an interventionalist agenda seeking to disrupt existing patterns of behaviour in disadvantaged areas in order to reduce the effects of deprivation in these areas. The costs of such action would likely be dissuasive and prohibitive. In all probability the funding would need to be sourced from the public sector, already under increasing pressure to provide social housing solutions. In the balance of providing funding for social housing activity or physically improving the quality of the existing built environment, providing homes might well be a higher priority. This further demonstrates the value of proper consideration of crime preventative and reductive design at the early stages of development, so that retro-fitting is not required to ameliorate the effects of deprivation.

Designing out Crime

269

However, one might argue that there will always be disparities in the quality of the built environment as townscapes evolve in their own temporal settings, influenced by design standards and resource availability of the time in which they were developed. An evolving patchwork effect of design standards may then be inherent in the lifespan of the built environment. Development initiatives by their nature have a specific and spatially fixed focus, created in line with contemporary policy priorities. If disparities are inherent within the quality of the built environment and the ability of different areas to protect the citizens of that environment against crime, then crime reductive and preventative design could be otherwise viewed as crime-displacing design.

13.7

Summary This chapter has provided an insight into crime preventative design. Initially, discussion highlighted the interrelated discourses that inform contemporary design policy. Principles of defensible space, natural surveillance, situational crime prevention, pattern theory and target hardening were identified as established approaches to secure design. The importance of the role of the local authority in both prescribing and enforcing design standards at the local level was discussed with reference to national policy. The emphasis on designing secure built environments under the wider sustainability agenda was also introduced, highlighting the increasing responsibility placed on local planning authorities. Safer Places and Secured by Design evidenced both the support available and limitations of the guidance available to assist local authorities in policy formulation. Two developments illustrated different approaches in urban design to preventing crime. The case studies were both residential developments of similar scale, one being Wharf Close in Manchester and the other a residential development in Sale, Trafford. Comparing the two case studies found that both had valid approaches to designing to prevent crime, but that the Wharf Close development had dealt more sympathetically with aesthetic considerations. This reflected previous discussion about the role of the local authority and their discretion in considering the design of proposed developments. The following section considered the theoretical repercussions of an uneven pattern of development in which crime preventative design benefits some areas of the built environment more than others.

13.8

Checklist

• •

Local authorities must create robust and appropriate policies, aimed at providing security within new developments, and these need to be applied and enforced effectively. Secure design can be related to the sustainability agenda and issues of community cohesion.

270

Design

• • •

Guidance on secure design creates vulnerability within the planning system by prescribing standards that are largely subjective and open to interpretation. In designing out crime, attention must also be paid to the aesthetics of development in order that it is attractive to end-users. Contemporary debates around issues of disadvantage and crime may influence the manner in which new developments are secured.

14 14.1

Design Standards for Residential and Commercial Developments

Introduction One aspect of the UK Government’s policy drive to achieve the effective and efficient reuse of land has been an intensification of land use through the higherdensity development of previously developed sites in both urban and rural areas. Unfortunately much of the high-density development that has taken place during the first decade of the twenty-first century, especially in urban areas, has had little regard for the urban form and context of the localities into which some of these high-density – and often high-rise – developments have been ‘dumped’. In some instances developers have even been encouraged by local planning authorities to increase the height of their developments, and the number of dwellings, with little thought being given to the creation of sustainable communities, or the integration of new communities with those that already exist in the area. Previously, the local planning authorities in question would probably have rejected these high-rise proposals on the grounds that they constituted overdevelopment of the site. More often than not these very dense developments, whether high-rise or not, make little or no provision for public or communal open spaces, as evidenced by the examples in Chapter 13, and do little in terms of creating sustainable communities. The purpose of this chapter is to introduce the reader to some of the thinking and initiatives that seek to make better use of space, whilst achieving liveable urban environments.

14.2

Urban design, smart growth and new urbanism Chapter 12 considered the importance of good urban design in public places, whereas this chapter expands the design considerations in the private or semipublic places in which we live and work. According to Brown et al. (2009), ‘Through the mid-1970s, the practice of urban design focused almost exclusively on the “public realm” – streets and other public spaces, particularly in cities’: but at the same time population and employment shifts to the suburbs raised questions about the future roles of cities. Therefore, during the late 1970s and the 1980s urban designers broadened their focus ‘to include the quality and character Land, Development and Design, 2e. By Paul Syms © 2010 Paul Syms

272

Design

of entire neighbourhoods and districts’. Then, in the 1990s, ‘The field’s scope expanded to include planning the revitalization of entire cities’ and ‘In the early 2000s, growing awareness of the environmental costs of sprawl and automobile dependency widened the field’s boundaries again, as urban designers searched for ways that humans can achieve a more balanced fit with nature at the regional level’ (Brown et al., 2009, p. 3). The Urban Design Compendium makes the point that ‘Design is not just for designers and their acolytes’; instead it ‘should involve a dialogue with the customer, whether the existing people within an area or those likely to move in’, forming a ‘process that needs to generate and draw upon consumer interest’ (English Partnerships and the Housing Corporation, 2007, volume 1, p. 11). The Compendium emphasises that local communities have important roles to play both in implementing projects and in their aftercare, and that the dialogue should extend across all professional disciplines involved in a project. It describes the key aspects of urban design as being:

• • • • • • •

Places for people – safe, comfortable, varied and vibrant, attractive and distinctive, so as to be well used and well loved. Enrich the existing – building on the qualities of existing urban spaces at every scale, through complementing their settings. Make connections – easy to get to, integrated both physically and visually with their surroundings. Work with the landscape – striking a balance between the natural and manmade environments, utilising each site’s intrinsic resources. Mix uses and forms – to create stimulating, enjoyable and convenient places that meet the varied demands of diverse users, amenities and social groups. Manage the investment – by understanding the market considerations of developers, ensuring long-term commitment from the community and the local authority. Design for change – ensuring that new developments have the flexibility to respond to future changes in use, lifestyle and demography. (based on English Partnerships and the Housing Corporation, 2007, p. 12, Table 1.1)

In 2009, when publishing World-class Places (see chapter 12), the UK Government pledged that, ‘All new public and private development will be built to the highest design standards. All new government-funded building programmes, including social housing, schools and health centres, will include improved design standards. Every significant public-sector project could have the opportunity to be advised or reviewed by a team of design experts from the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE)’ (CLG, 2009d, press notice, 12 May). The press notice continued by saying, ‘Government will also establish an integrated set of design quality standards for homes and neighbourhoods to ensure the quality of design does not slip. These will cover the key issues that are fundamental to good design, such as sustainable and practical development, and using design to discourage crime and address the needs of older people and disabled people.’


273

In seeking to contain urban sprawl, the advocates of Smart Growth ‘argue for optimizing existing infrastructures before building anew; concentrating development instead of spreading it over farmland and forest; reducing traffic; and emphasizing affordability and sustainability in housing. Many of these goals can be achieved simply by reversing urban decay and revitalizing older suburbs and urban centers by choosing to redevelop brownfield (former industrial) and grayfield (strip-mall) sites over building on greenfields (previously undeveloped land)’ (Brown et al., 2009, p. 98). As discussed in chapter 2, the reuse of brownfield land has long been a matter of government policy in the United Kingdom, especially in England, where well in excess of 60 per cent of new housing provision currently takes place on previously developed land (both brownfield and grayfield, to use the North American terminology). The need to reuse is also now being recognised in the United States, where ‘Many urban designers have already aligned themselves with this approach, which is helping to refocus the nation’s energies on its older cities while creating an entirely new class of sustainable developments in suburban and exurban areas’ (Brown et al., 2009, p. 98). Based on the experience of communities around the United States that have used smart-growth approaches to create and maintain great neighborhoods, the Smart Growth Network has developed a set of ten basic principles:

• • • • • • • • • •

Mix land uses. Take advantage of compact building design. Create a range of housing opportunities and choices. Create walkable neighborhoods. Foster distinctive, attractive communities with a strong sense of place. Preserve open space, farmland, natural beauty, and critical environmental areas. Strengthen and direct development towards existing communities. Provide a variety of transportation choices. Make development decisions predictable, fair, and cost-effective. Encourage community and stakeholder collaboration in development decisions. (Source: USEPA website – Smart Growth Principles)

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) publishes several useful reports and other resources relating to Smart Growth, which are downloadable from the Agency’s website at www.epa.gov/dced/about_sg.htm. The county of Hertfordshire forms part of the East of England region, where much of England’s housing growth is planned to take place. The East of England Regional Plan contains population growth estimates and housing development requirements, showing planned expansion of 508,000 dwellings, of which Hertfordshire ‘as a single county is mandated to accommodate 83,200 dwellings’ (Duany Plater-Zyberk & Company, 2009, p. 6). Of these approximately 26,000 had been built by April 2009 and planning had been approved for a further 29,500, leaving land to be found for approximately 27,000 dwellings. These figures exclude an additional 20,000 dwellings allocated for Luton and Harlow New Towns.

274

Design

In order to address the proposals put forward in the East of England Regional Spatial Strategy, a ‘charette’ approach was adopted, similar to an Enquiry by Design approach described in chapter 10. Eight special-interest groups convened at the University of Hertfordshire to discuss specific aspects of the county’s growth; they included:

• • • • • • • •

local planners, who discussed planning practice at the district and county levels and policy at the national level; environmental professionals and activists who discussed the merits of an environmental strategy; councillors, who discussed the general region and the current political climate; local transportation engineers and the traffic authority, who discussed the transportation network, as well as means of calming traffic and alleviating congestion; business leaders and representatives from the Chamber of Commerce, to discuss the economy and means of encouraging retail and business activity; local property owners and developers, working in the region, who discussed current development practice and upcoming plans; social and community advocates, who discussed needs and means of providing resources; and local and national design professionals who discussed specific design strategies. (Duany Plater-Zyberk & Co., 2009, p. 5)

The charette discussions identified six scenarios for growth, which were analysed both subjectively and objectively using the Building Research Establishment (BRE) analytical method called ‘GreenPrint’, more information about which is downloadable from the BRE website at www.bre.co.uk. The six scenarios considered were: 1. Continuation of existing trends – with housing provided primarily on smaller sites wherever found; 2. Brownfield and greyfield sites – where some of the housing is placed on previously developed sites; 3. Transport-oriented development – with some of the housing placed along transport routes; 4. Settlement extensions – with some of the housing on green-belt land attached to the edges of existing settlements; 5. Satellite (Garden) Villages – where some of the housing is located in new villages in proximity to existing settlements; and 6. Stand-alone Garden City – where the majority of the housing is assigned to a new city on an existing rail line. (based on Duany Plater-Zyberk & Co., 2009, p. 12) The report of the charette discusses each of these scenarios in detail (Duany Plater-Zyberk & Company, 2009, pp. 14–25) before considering theoretical case studies for each scenario. In the context of this book, those relating to Scenario 2 are particularly relevant, as follows:


275

Greyfield housing – accommodated within the footprint of existing settlements, for example, by taking typical New Town terraced housing, constructed in the mid-nineteenth century, renovating and enlarging it to suit larger families. ‘This housing is characterised by its out-of-date style’ and ‘lacks individuality due to endless repetition’. Renovations and new additions can define public street frontage, upgrade the aesthetic to a more contemporary one and/or hide parked cars in courtyards (Duany Plater-Zyberk & Company, 2009, p. 30). Greyfield urban village – revitalising ‘a New Town neighbourhood centre, or greyfield site, providing additional housing and generally improving commercial activity’. Replacing the original single-storey retail scheme and car park with ‘a three-storey, mixed-use building more accessibly located along a new vehicular street front’, with new parking ‘conveniently available on-street along the shop fronts, as well as in a mid-block car park behind’. The existing long sweeping streets ‘are traffic calmed by new greens and deflected trajectories’. Some existing housing units would be removed, to break up long terraces, new housing constructed to create frontages that ‘are disciplined with house fronts facing other fronts and mid-block mews inserted to provide garage access’ (Duany PlaterZyberk & Company, 2009, p. 31). Greyfield town centre – making better use of surface car parks by compacting them into parking structures, of which a number of opportunities exist in Hertfordshire. ‘Because these town centres are low in density [mostly one- and two-storey structures], well located for transportation purposes and already failing, they have become strong candidates for redevelopment.’ Their regeneration may be achieved in several ways:

• • • • • 14.3

by bringing conventional, slow-moving traffic streets through the sites, including the ‘pedestrian’ malls; converting surface car parks into buildings with new multi-storey car parks masked by ‘linear’ buildings; masking ‘big box’ retail units with linear buildings; replacing single-storey retail units with multi-storey, mixed-use buildings, having offices or residential units on the upper floors; and urban tree planting, to improve the functioning of streets, square and plazas. (based on Duany Plater-Zyberk & Co., 2009, p. 32)

Design codes Design codes are defined by the Department for Communities and Local Government (CLG) in the following terms: A design code is a set of illustrated design rules and requirements which instruct and may advise on the physical development of a site or area. The graphic and written components of the code are detailed and precise, and build upon a design vision such as a masterplan or other design and development framework for a site or area. (Annex B to Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing (CLG, 2006b).

276

Design

In May 2004 the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM), in partnership with CABE and English Partnerships, launched a research programme to test the use of design codes in England through a series of live case studies. A team from the Bartlett School of Planning, led by Professor Matthew Carmona, and Tibbalds Planning and Urban Design, were commissioned to undertake an independent monitoring and evaluation of the programme. The aim of the research was to test the impact of design coding on a number of possible outcomes: the speed and certainty of the development process; the quality of outcomes; the coordination of stakeholder activities and aspirations; the inclusion of the community in the design process; and the likely economic costs and benefits of design coding. The programme included monitoring and evaluation of nineteen case studies of three types:

• • •

‘pilot’ projects enabled by CABE to produce design codes as an integral part of seven evolving development projects; retrospective evaluation of eight ‘Advanced’ coded projects, where codes had already been prepared and used independently of the pilot programme; and four ‘Non-code’ projects, which used other detailed design guidance mechanisms and were chosen as comparisons. (ODPM, 2006b, p. 2)

The research suggested that, in a variety of circumstances, design codes can be valuable tools in delivering a range of benefits in respect of quality, certainty, coordination, land and property values. It concluded that design codes can play a major role in delivering better-quality development, and they also have a significant role to play in delivering more certainty in the design and development process. The research report was followed, in November 2006, by publication of Preparing Design Codes: A practice manual, produced jointly by the Department for Communities and Local Government (CLG) and CABE. In her Foreword to the guide Baroness Andrews, then House of Lords Minister for Housing and Planning, said ‘Design Coding is one option open to local authorities and designers to achieve high-quality, well-designed places. Although it is not the only option, it is one which I believe, if used effectively, will present local authorities and designers with greater opportunities to achieve good-quality design in a transparent, streamlined and collaborative way and which is tailored to reflect local needs and circumstances’ (Andrews, 2006, p. 5). The potential benefits of design codes are described as including:

• • • • •

better-designed development, with less opposition locally and a more level playing field for developers; enhanced economic value that a positive sense of place and better-quality design can bring; a more certain planning process and, linked to this, a more certain climate for investment; streamlined development control, saving time and money for developers and local authorities alike; more coordinated development process, which is built on consensus instead of conflict. (CLG and CABE, 2006, p. 10)


277

The guide is divided into two parts: Part A is relevant to all readers, including non-specialists, and provides a broad understanding of design codes, setting out the background to the growing interest in design codes and where they are likely to be appropriate; Part B is intended as a practical guide, which can be referred to throughout the design-coding process. In Part A it is explained that design codes are intended to be different from conventional land-use zoning regulations, which, in their most basic form, are not informed by urban design considerations related to place making. They can help embed the aspirations for a place, and assist in proactively taking forward and implementing local visions with greater consensus, transparency, speed, quality and certainty (CLG and CABE, 2006, p. 12). The guide continues to explain that by understanding what the important design components for the development of a site or area are, design codes can set detailed and transparent requirements on delivery and can help to deliver a step change in the quality of both residential and non-residential development. In essence, design codes are delivery tools that require an early investment of time and resources in the planning of a development or area in order to deliver an enhanced process and product: they ‘operationalise’ the vision for a site or area, securing higher-quality outcomes for all (CLG and CABE, 2006, p. 13). As well as extolling their virtues, the guide responds to arguments against design codes, which, it says, focus on concerns based on a range of common misconceptions. It acknowledges that if design codes are poorly prepared, or inappropriately applied or implemented, they may be part of the problem, not the solution. However, the guide goes on to state that international experience and – increasingly – evidence from the UK suggest that these misconceptions have little basis in fact. Pointing to research evidence, the guide states that, ‘When used correctly design codes can play a key role in helping to deliver design quality in contexts where it has typically been lacking in the recent past; particularly in large-scale, predominantly residential developments’ (CLG and CABE, 2006, p. 15). The distinguishing features of design codes are described as follows:

• • • • • •

They are a set of graphic, and to a lesser extent written, rules that are technical in nature. They establish with precision the design considerations of a development or area. They are based on a design vision such as a masterplan or other form of design framework for a site or area. They are three-dimensional in scope, and focus primarily on urban design considerations. They focus on the essential and mandatory design characteristics of a particular development. They can also include provisions which are advisory or optional.

Part A of the guide then goes on to describe the factors that should be considered before selecting a design-coding approach and the basis for successful design coding. It suggests that design codes are most valuable when applied to large sites (or multiple smaller related sites) that will be built out in phases over a long period

278

Design

of time, as well as sites in multiple ownership and sites likely to be developed by several different developers and/or design teams, where coordination between the parties is desirable. Figure 14.1 shows a simple decision-making path that can be followed to determine whether design codes are appropriate; it also acknowledges that where design codes are not appropriate, other forms of detailed design guidance should be considered. The guide emphasises that, to be successful, design codes need to be supported by a range of important factors:

• • • •

stakeholders with access to the right design skills; developers who are committed to delivering design quality; planning and highways authorities who are committed to place-making; a consensus between key stakeholders concerning the vision for the site or area and the strategy for its implementation. (CLG and CABE, 2006, p. 25)

Part B of the guide takes the reader through the process of preparing a successful design code, describing the key stages as follows: Stage 1: Initiating the design code – thinking through and defining an agreed process for preparing and operating the code, and establishing leadership arrangements. Stage 2: Coordinating inputs into the design coding process – bringing together the skills, financial resources, and the roles and relationships that will create and implement the design code. Stage 3: Appraising the local context for design coding – assessing the existing policy and guidance framework and any consents already covering the site or area, its character, and any existing physical vision such as a masterplan. Stage 4: Designing and testing the design code – devising, structuring, writing and designing the content and expression of the design code, and then testing its robustness – including its market viability, likely capacity to deliver quality, and its ease of use to all users. Stage 5: Formalising the design code – giving the design code status by adopting it for planning, highways or other purposes, or by formalising it through other means – such as through development control powers or control over freehold rights. Stage 6: Implementing the design code – using the design code to select design and development teams for individual land parcels, to inform the parcel design process itself, and for the assessment and regulation of the proposals coming forward. Stage 7: Managing design code compliance – monitoring and enforcing design code implementation; evaluating the success of the design code to refine it; and, using the design code for project aftercare. (CLG and CABE, 2006, pp. 25–6)


Design coding: To code or not to code? Is detailed site-specific guidance required?

START

No

If adequate guidance already in place or no guidance required

No

If likely to be built out quickly, too small to be phased

No

If there is single owner or consortium acting together

No

If there is a single developer and/or design team

Design scheme and apply for planning permission

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Potential to use a design code (alongside a site-specific design vision)

Is the site(s) large enough to justify a code?

Does the pattern of ownership justify a code?

Does the process of development justify a code?

OR

Consider using other sitespecific design guidance*

* Guidance and advice, can be found in: By Design – Urban Design in the Planning System: towards better practice (DETR, 2000) Planning & Development Briefs: A Guide to Better Practice (DETR, 1998) Creating Successful Masterplans: A Guide for Clients (CABE, 2004) Urban Design Guidance – Urban Design Frameworks, Development Briefs and Masterplans (Urban Design Group, 2002)

Figure 14.1 A design code decision-making tool (source: CLG and CABE, 2006, p. 21)

279

280

Design

14.4 Modern methods of construction (MMC) and zero-carbon homes 14.4.1 Modern methods of construction MMC is a generic term describing a range of construction techniques that are different from traditional construction methods (Kempton and Syms, 2009), which in the UK are predominately building with bricks and mortar and a timbersuspended, pitched, tiled or slated roof. It was promoted by English Partnerships as a means of ‘finding efficient ways to deliver high-quality, well-designed homes, quickly, efficiently and economically’ (English Partnerships, 2008b). It is regarded as a means of improving quality and on-site safety, as well as overcoming skills shortages in the construction of housing, so as to:

• • • •

make use of more effective materials and reduce on-site waste; speed up housing delivery, with reduced likelihood of delays due to inclement weather; enable high standards of design quality, with improved quality control through the manufacture and construction processes; and perhaps help to reduce resource consumption.

Table 14.1 provides an attempt at classifying the different types of MMC, based on a Building Research Establishment research report (Ross, 2005), definitions used by the Housing Corporation (2003) and information produced by English Partnerships (2008b).

Table 14.1 MMC classifications (source: Kempton and Syms, 2009, p. 37) Type

Description

Volumetric construction

Also known as ‘Modular’ and ‘Pod’ construction, produced in factory conditions and transported in modules to site. These range from basic shells to fully fitted units such as kitchens and bathrooms.

Panellised construction

Flat panels produced in a factory and transported to site for assembly. Two main types –‘Open panels’, consisting of a skeletal structure with services, external cladding etc. fitted on-site, and ‘Closed panels’– which involve a higher degree of factory-based fit-out.

Hybrid

Utilises both panellised and volumetric methods. Typically, volumetric units are used for the highly serviced and more repeatable areas, such as bathrooms, with the rest of the dwelling using panel technology.

Sub-assemblies and components

This covers building approaches that fall short of being classified as off-site manufacture or MMC, but do include elements of them. For example, floor or roof cassettes or pre-assembled mechanical services etc., but are otherwise more traditional in nature.

Site-based methods of construction (SBMC)

Examples of construction forms that are generally accepted as SBMC, including TunnelForm, Gluelam and thin-joint blockwork.


281

14.4.2 Zero-carbon homes In 2005, at the behest of the Rt Hon. John Prescott, then the Deputy Prime Minister, English Partnerships organised a Design for Manufacture (DfM) competition, intended to address the rising costs of house construction and show just how well homes can be designed and built for a target construction cost of £60,000 per unit. The competition was open both to traditional and modern methods of construction. It took place in three stages. The first stage invited organisations to express their interest in the competition, with the best making it through to stage two, where they were asked to show detailed plans for how their home designs could be constructed for the target cost. A government-appointed independent panel of experts judged the designs and selected nine organisations and consortia to go through to the final stage of the competition and submit bids to turn their designs into real homes on one or more competition sites. The winning entries showed integrated delivery of architects, suppliers and development teams (www.designformanufacture.info). Innovative home design, cost efficiency and high-quality standards were key factors in the winning designs, together with environmental efficiency, the use of sustainable products and maximum use of natural light. Land was efficiently used, with densities achieved through good housing design and plot use rather than by building blocks of flats. Flexibility was a theme of several designs, ensuring that homes could be adapted to suit the needs of their owners throughout their lifetime, as well as accessibility for wheelchair users or pushchairs. The principles of Secured by Design (see chapter 13) were applied to the developments, and the winning designs made good use of space in ways that are sympathetic to the surrounding environment. Following on from the success of the DfM competition, in July 2007 the government published Building a Greener Future: Policy statement (CLG, 2007c) and announced that all new homes will be zero-carbon from 2016, to be achieved with a major progressive tightening of the energy-efficiency building regulations – by 25 per cent in 2010 and by 44 per cent in 2013, to 100 per cent in 2016. This was followed in December 2008 by a government consultation, aimed at defining Zero Carbon Homes and Non-Domestic Buildings (CLG, 2008c), with a closing date of 18 March 2009. The consultation proposed that the definition for homes should be based on high energy efficiency, on-site carbon reduction measures, and a list of allowable solutions for dealing with the remaining emissions. It also set out current government thinking on zero-carbon new non-domestic buildings. The consultation document stated that the detailed definition of zero-carbon homes ‘needs to be framed with the following considerations in mind:

• • • • • • •

technical feasibility; economic and financial viability; adaptability and flexibility; relevant carbon reductions; a workable regulatory framework; broader environmental considerations; and zero-carbon homes as desirable and healthy homes.’ (CLG, 2008c, p. 22)

282

Design

When considering what the policy is trying to achieve: ‘It is worth remembering that the primary objective of the zero-carbon homes policy is to avoid the increase in emissions that would otherwise arise from developing three million homes by 2020. In addition, the expectation is that the policy will deliver related benefits by improving housing quality and stimulate the uptake in green technologies’ (McAllister, 2009). According to McAllister, the forms of carbon saving prioritised in the consultation (e.g. improved thermal performance and larger-scale offsite initiatives) are likely to provide greater longevity and reliability. This is because improved thermal performance is essentially a passive solution while, on the other hand, larger-scale initiatives will have to be managed professionally with higher levels of availability and adequate provision for maintenance and replacement as needed. She went on to express concern that ‘reliance on a few technology types, such as biomass (both heating and CHP)’ would result in a ‘rapid, massive increase in demand for them’, raising concerns about ‘how the biomass is grown and transported, whether a fuel supply can be guaranteed, and whether the technologies in smaller-scale schemes are reliable’ (McAllister 2009). The consultation document set out a total of 36 questions, of which 27 related to zero-carbon homes and nine to non-domestic buildings. In total, some 270 responses were received and a summary was published in July 2009 (CLG, 2009e). The two largest respondent groups were ‘Regional and local authorities’ and ‘Property developers and builders’ with 64 and 59 responses, respectively. These were followed by ‘Architects, consultants and engineers’ and ‘Supply chain/ manufacturers’, with 38 and 31 responses. Only seven responses were received from social housing agencies. The main conclusions to emerge from the consultation were that:

• • •

14.5

There was support for the majority of the proposals on zero-carbon homes, with more than half of respondents agreeing with 13 of the 22 questions to which they could answer ‘yes’. There was stronger support (more than 70 per cent in agreement) for eight questions. Overall, there were significant sectoral differences in views and these differences were particularly marked between property developers and builders, regional and local authorities and architects, consultants and engineers. There was stronger support for the majority of proposals on non-domestic buildings, with over 80 per cent of respondents supporting five of the eight questions on which they could express a preference. Views of the different sectors were much less marked. (CLG, 2009e, p. 7)

Development densities and the Code for Sustainable Homes

14.5.1 Development densities In 2000, when Planning Policy Guidance note 3 – Housing (PPG3) was published, new housing in England was being built at an average of 25 dwellings per hectare, but more than half of all new housing was being built at densities of less than 20


283

dwellings per hectare (ODPM, 2000, p. 19). The guidance note stated that this represented a level of land take that was historically very high and not sustainable. Local planning authorities were therefore required to examine critically the standards applied to new development and avoid policies that placed unduly restrictive ceilings on the amount of housing that can be accommodated on a site. Authorities were particularly advised to:

• • •

avoid developments that make inefficient use of land – i.e., less than 30 dwellings per hectare net; encourage housing development that makes more efficient use of land – between 30 and 50 dwellings per hectare net; and seek greater intensity of development at places with good public transport accessibility such as city, town, district and local centres or around major nodes along good-quality public transport corridors. (DETR, 2000a, p. 19)

PPG3 also provided local planning authorities with guidance on promoting mixed-use developments, linking developments with public transport, greening the residential environment, designing for quality and rejecting poor design, and on parking standards. Unfortunately the well-meaning policy, aimed at making more efficient use of the nation’s land resources, often resulted in undesirable side effects. Some local authorities found themselves powerless to resist developers’ proposals for increased densities and indeed, some actively encouraged developers to submit development proposals at densities they would previously have rejected as being excessive over-development. Projects were approved that, in hindsight, were far from meeting the criteria of good design, often with little or no green space and no contribution to enhancing the quality of the public realm. Guidance that car parking provision with more than 1.5 off-street spaces per dwelling was ‘unlikely to reflect the government’s emphasis on securing sustainable residential environments’ (DETR, 2000a, p. 20), resulted in developers designing, and local planning authorities approving, developments with very little car-parking provision, and certainly less than one off-street space per dwelling. The outcome of all this has been a reduction in dwelling sizes, in private-sector developments especially, an over-supply of one- and two-bedroom flats in many cities and towns, and unsightly congestion caused by the on-street, or on-verge, parking of cars in developments where parking provision is inadequate. Recognising the somewhat prescriptive language regarding development densities in PPG3, the approach was toned down somewhat when, in 2006, the guidance note was replaced by Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing (CLG, 2006b) – see also chapter 2. Although retaining a density of 30 dwellings per hectare (net) as a ‘national indicative minimum to guide policy development and decision making’, PPS3 stated that local planning authorities should develop housing density policies having regard to:

•

the spatial vision and strategy for housing development in their area, including the level of housing demand and need and the availability of suitable land in the area;

284

Design

• • • • •

the current and future level and capacity of infrastructure, services and facilities such as public and private amenity space, in particular green and open space; the desirability of using land efficiently and reducing, and adapting to, the impacts of climate change; the current and future levels of accessibility, particularly public transport accessibility; the characteristics of the area, including the current and proposed mix of uses; the desirability of achieving high-quality, well-designed housing …. (CLG, 2006b, para 46)

Local planning authorities could adopt their own policy approaches in responding to the above criteria, and the approach taken by the Borough of Castle Point in Essex (comprising the towns of Benfleet, Canvey, Rayleigh and Thundersley) may be regarded as a good example for other authorities to follow – see Box 14.1. 14.5.2 Code for Sustainable Homes The Code for Sustainable Homes was launched in December 2006 as ‘a new national standard for sustainable design and construction of new homes’, and since April 2007 developers of new homes in England can choose to be assessed against the Code. On 16 November 2007 the government confirmed that it would be proceeding with the implementation of mandatory ratings against the Code for all new homes, and The Code for Sustainable Homes: Setting the standard in sustainability for new homes was published in February 2008 (CLG, 2008d). This was followed in May 2009 by Version 2 of the Technical Guide, which came into effect on 22 June 2009. The fact that the Code is mandatory does not mean that every new home has to be assessed against the Code, but that everyone interested in buying a new home should be able to see information saying whether or not it had been assessed and, if so, the star rating achieved. The National Assembly for Wales has adopted the Code and Northern Ireland requires Code Level 3 for all public-sector housing from April 2008. The Code does not apply in Scotland. The Code measures the sustainability of a home against nine design categories, rating the ‘whole home’ as a complete package. The design categories are:

• Energy and CO emissions • Water • Materials • Surface water run-off • Waste 2

• Pollution • Heath and well-being • Management • Ecology

Each category includes a number of environmental issues that have a potential impact on the environment. The issues can be assessed against a performance target and awarded one or more credits. Performance targets are more demanding than the minimum standard needed to satisfy Building Regulations or other legislation. They represent good or best practice, are technically feasible, and


285

Box 14.1 Borough of Castle Point: development densities (source: Castle Point, undated, p. 7) Recognising the importance of the development densities issue, the authority’s policy was considered as part of its ‘core strategies’ and not simply as a development control matter. Stakeholders were consulted in respect of three options, and there was found to be mixed support for the options proposed. Residents were seeking the best use of land in order to protect the green belt from development, whilst developers were seeking flexibility offered by lower-density targets as, in their view, these would enable them to respond better to the market and meet local needs. The issue of space requirements for family homes was raised, which it was suggested justified the setting of lower-density targets. The Council’s vision for Castle Point was one of making the best use of land in order to protect the diverse natural environment and to encourage sustainable regeneration of town centres. Given this vision and the consultation responses, it was clear that some revision to the three options was required in order to produce policy wording that: • • •

makes the most efficient use of land; responds to other elements of the sustainability criteria; and offers the flexibility to meet the housing needs of local people. Thus the following wording was arrived at: The density of future development in Castle Point should contribute towards sustainable development by making the most efficient use of land and creating communities that can support improved services and facilities. As a focal point for services and facilities, development in and adjacent to town centres should achieve a minimum density of 65 dwelling units per hectare. Larger development sites1 present the opportunity to incorporate imaginative and sustainable design principles, whilst also accommodating a mix of housing types that meets local needs. These sites should achieve a minimum density of 50 dwelling units per hectare. Throughout the remainder of the Borough a minimum density of 30 dwelling units per hectare will be sought on all new developments. This should not be viewed as a maximum target with design and setting driving the actual level of provision made.

can be delivered by the building industry (CLG, 2008d, p. 6). The Code uses a sustainability rating system – indicated by ‘stars’ – to communicate the overall sustainability performance of a home. A home can achieve a sustainability rating from one (*) to six (******) stars, depending on the extent to which it has achieved Code standards. One star (*) is the entry level – above the level of the Building Regulations; and six stars (******) is the highest level – reflecting exemplar devel1

Larger development sites implies sites over 1ha in size within the existing urban area and on the urban periphery where the opportunity for incorporating more innovative design is generally less constrained by existing development patterns.

286

Design

opment in sustainability terms (CLG, 2008d, p. 7). The rating achieved by a home represents its overall performance across the nine Code design categories shown in Table 14.2, with minimum standards for a number of categories, which must be achieved to gain a one-star rating.

Table 14.2 Summary of environmental impact categories and issues [(M) denotes issues with mandatory elements] (source: CLG, 2008d, p10 Annex A, Table 1) Categories

Issues

Energy and CO2 emissions

Dwelling emission rate (M) Building fabric Drying space Energy-labelled white goods External lighting Low- or zero-carbon (LZC) technologies Cycle storage Home office

Water

Internal water use (M) External water use

Materials

Environmental impact of materials (M) Responsible sourcing of materials – building elements Responsible sourcing of materials – finishing elements

Surface water run-off

Management of surface water run-off from developments (M) Flood risk

Waste

Storage of non-recyclable waste and recyclable household waste (M) Construction waste management (M) Composting

Pollution

Global Warming Potential (GWP) of insulants NOx emissions

Health and well-being

Daylighting Sound insulation Private space Lifetime homes (M)

Management

Home-user guide Considerate constructors’ scheme Construction site impacts Security

Ecology

Ecological value of site Ecological enhancement Protection of ecological features Change in ecological value of site Building footprint

Energy-efficiency and water-efficiency categories also have minimum standards that must be achieved at every level of the Code. This recognises their importance to the sustainability of any home. Apart from these minimum requirements the Code is completely flexible, with developers being able to choose which and how


287

many standards they implement to obtain ‘credits’ under the Code in order to achieve a higher sustainability rating (CLG, 2008d, p. 7). Annex A of the Code provides information on the weightings attached to the different issues and how the final score is calculated; see Figure 14.2. Annex B of the Code, ‘The Standard’, sets out in more detail the elements that the Code looks at, what it aims to achieve and the methods of assessment to be used. This is underpinned by technical guidance (CLG, 2009f ).

2

2

Figure 14.2 Scoring system for the Code for Sustainable Homes (source: CLG, 2008 p18, Annex A Figure 1)

14.5.3 Lifetime homes One of the mandatory issues in the ‘Health and well-being’ category in the Code for Sustainable Homes – see Table 14.2 above – is that of ‘Lifetime homes’. Announced in February 2008, Lifetime Homes, Lifetime Neighbourhoods is the government’s response to Britain’s ageing population – one of the greatest housing challenges of the twenty-first century. Prepared jointly by Communities and Local Government, the Department of Health and the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), Lifetime Homes, Lifetime Neighbourhoods (CLG et al., 2008) describes the government’s strategy and its plan to create Lifetime Homes in Lifetime Neighbourhoods. It is estimated that by 2026 there will be 2.4 million more older households than there were in 2008, and that by 2041 the composition of the older age group will have changed dramatically. There will be a higher proportion of the older age groups, including the over-85s, a greater number of older people from black and minority ethnic groups, and double the number of older disabled people (CLG et al., 2008, p. 11). This means that housing, health and care will be increasingly interdependent, requiring a strategic approach that is embedded across government.

288

Design

The Lifetime Homes strategy aims to address the needs of the changing demographics in a number of different ways:

• • • • • • • • • • • • •

increasing investment in new housing; working with partners across government, the voluntary and community sector to provide a national housing advice and information service and, linked to this, strengthen local housing information services; making it easier and safer for people to stay in their own homes, near their family and neighbours; introducing a new rapid repairs and adaptations service to support more handypersons schemes across the country; modernising the Disabled Facilities Grant, so that it reaches more people, more quickly; continuing major investment in improving housing conditions for older people through the Decent Homes Programme, allocating over £800 million additional funding for the Warm Front Programme; ensuring that all public housing will be built to Lifetime Homes Standards by 2011; introducing a new Beacon theme on inclusive planning to recognise local authorities providing leadership in good design; designing all Eco-towns to be Lifetime Neighbourhoods; requiring regional and local plans to take proper account of ageing and the needs of older people; improving joined-up assessment, service provision and commissioning across the housing, health and care services, with greater personalisation through the development of Personal Budgets; boosting preventative housing services through investing in proven approaches, such as advice and information, adaptations and repairs, which can prevent health and care crises for individuals; and creating more homes and more choice, through increased funding for public housing, and encouraging private-sector provision through planning system reform. (based on CLG et al., 2008)

The five-year aim of the strategy is to ensure that older people will have housing that supports healthy, active and independent living in welcoming communities. Housing, neighbourhoods and communities will be more inclusive, attractive and sustainable for an ageing population, with more mainstream and specialist homes of the right type in the right location for older people (CLG et al., 2008, p. 147). The strategy aims to ensure that new housing will be built to Lifetime Homes standards, with new communities built as Lifetime Neighbourhoods, and existing stock improved to enhance housing quality and promote good health. Finally, the strategy document sets out a schedule of action points, identifying departmental responsibilities and a timetable for action. The Commission for Architecture in the Built Environment (CABE) has published a useful Building for Life: Delivering great places to live (CABE, 2007), which


289

sets out 20 questions that should be considered by house builders, housing associations, architects, planners and others involved in projects aimed at providing lifetime homes. The questions are listed in Box 14.2 and the guide responds to them with practical suggestions and references to relevant planning and policy documents. Box 14.2 2007)

20 questions that you need to answer (source: CABE,

Character 1. Does the scheme feel like a place with distinctive character? 2. Do the buildings exhibit architectural quality? 3. Are the streets defined by a well-structured building layout? 4. Do the buildings and layout make it easy to find your way around? 5. Does the scheme exploit existing buildings, landscape or topography? Roads, parking and pedestrianisation 6. Does the building layout take priority over the roads and car parking, so that they do not dominate? 7. Are the streets pedestrian-, cycle- and vehicle-friendly? 8. Is the car parking well integrated and situated so it supports the street scheme? 9. Does the scheme integrate with existing roads, paths and surrounding development? 10. Are the public spaces and pedestrian routes overlooked and do they feel safe? Design and construction 11. Is the design specific to the scheme? 12. Is public space well designed and does it have suitable management arrangements in place? 13. Do the buildings or spaces outperform statutory minima, such as Building Regulations? 14. Has the scheme made use of advances in construction or technology that enhance its performance, quality and attractiveness? 15. Do internal spaces and layout allow for adaptation, conversion or extension? Environment and community 16. Does the development have easy access to public transport? 17. Does the development have any features that reduce its environmental impact? 18. Is there a tenure mix that reflects the needs of the local community? 19. Is there an accommodation mix that reflects the needs and aspirations of the local community? 20. Does the development provide (or is it close to) community facilities, such as schools, parks, play areas, shops, pubs or cafes?

It is suggested that developers can use the 20 questions as a basis for writing development briefs, with a view to speeding up planning approvals and winning local community support. Local authorities can use them to demand high standards of design and to assess design quality (CABE, 2007).

290

14.6

Design

Achieving quality in commercial development ‘Building design affects most businesses – directly through the siting of premises, the suitability of buildings for their purpose or the ongoing cost of building maintenance. Indirectly, building design can influence the efficiency of the business and the productivity or retention of staff ’ (Fitzpatrick, 2008). This statement by architect and urban designer Miriam Fitzpatrick succinctly emphasises the importance of good design in commercial buildings. A member of CABE’s Urban Panel, Fitzpatrick adds that design quality can affect ‘everything from workers’ productivity and customers’ perception of service, to the back-office activities of the stock exchange and the loading bays of the factory’.

14.6.1 BRE Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) The Building Research Establishment’s BREEAM is the most widely used environmental assessment method for buildings, setting the standard for best practice in sustainable design. It aims to provide the designers, developers and users of buildings with:

• • • • • •

market recognition for low-environmental-impact buildings; assurance that best environmental practice is incorporated into a building; inspiration to find innovative solutions that minimise the environmental impact; a benchmark that is higher than regulation; a tool to help reduce running costs, improve working and living environments; a standard that demonstrates progress towards corporate and organisational environmental objectives. (BREEAM website: www.breeam.org, December 2009)

By using a straightforward and transparent scoring system, BREEAM enables developers and designers to prove the environmental qualities of their buildings. Supported by evidence-based research, it has a positive influence on the design, construction and management of buildings, setting robust technical standards with rigorous quality assurance and certification. BREEAM standards and certification can apply to all types of building, from offices and industrial buildings to public facilities such as hospitals and schools. They are also applicable to residential developments; the Code for Sustainable Homes described in section 14.5.2 above is based on the BRE Ecohomes rating.

14.6.2 Design Quality Indicator (DQI) Launched in 2002, development of the DQI was led by the Construction Industry Council, to create a generic tool that can be used on a wide variety of buildings. It received sponsorship and support from government and industry bodies including the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform


291

(BERR), CABE, Constructing Excellence, the Office of Government Commerce (OGC), and the Strategic Forum for Construction (SFfC). DQI is a method of evaluating the design and construction of new buildings and the refurbishment of existing buildings. The process actively involves a wide group of people in the design of buildings. Those involved are people responsible for the design and construction and those who will use the building or be affected by it. DQI can be used at all stages of a building’s development and plays a fundamental role in contributing to the improved quality of building projects. The DQI process follows a clear structure that is linked to the industry phases of a building project. At each stage there is a workshop where the online tools are used. These workshops enable DQI to record what participants think about the building or design and to present this information in a meaningful way. It is this output that helps to inform the process of designing the building. (DQI website: www.dqi.org.uk, December 2009).

14.7

Summary The principles of ‘New Urbanism’ and ‘Smart Growth’ may not apply in all brownfield regeneration situations in the United Kingdom, but they can help to inform ideas as part of the project inception and design processes. Redevelopment can provide outstanding opportunities for the creation of new public spaces, and if they are not grasped they can be lost for at least another 50 to 100 years. It is therefore important to ensure that the development project is viewed as a part of the local neighbourhood and not in isolation from nearby properties and land uses. Design codes and similar guidance are starting to become accepted ‘norms’, and if developers are going to be able to compete in ever more competitive markets, for both residential and commercial properties, they will need to have regard for the standards set in the codes. Modern methods of construction can provide clean, fast and efficient ways of providing new buildings, with opportunities to ensure high standards of insulation and to minimise waste. However, it is essential to ensure that these buildings, whether homes or offices, are of the highest quality and do not attract the bad reputation that attached to many of the timber-framed and ‘system-built’ buildings of previous generations. The jury is still out on initiatives such as ‘Eco-towns’ and ‘Lifetime Homes’ and it will be up to future generations to determine whether or not these and other similar initiatives have actually stood the test of time. In the meantime, it is the responsibility of everyone working in the development industry to try and ensure that the design mistakes of the 1950s to the 1970s are not repeated.

14.8

Checklist

• •

Sustainability – will the proposed development meet its objectives? Does the proposed project relate well to its local environs, for example in terms of improving both public and private spaces?

292

Design

• • • •

Are the rooms of adequate size, or would some of the bedrooms be more appropriately termed ‘boxrooms’? Are good storage facilities provided, including for wheelie bins and other receptacles for recycling? Are good public transport facilities available and, if not, are there adequate car-parking places or other provisions for car sharing, such as car clubs? For commercial developments, are they served by good public transport, or will they almost exclusively be served by cars?

15 15.1

Planning for the Future

Introduction In many ways writing this edition of Land, Development and Design has been like trying to hit a moving target. Not only has it been written against the background of the worst recession since the 1930s, with major impacts right across the UK’s development industry, but it has also been written at a time of increasing regulation and guidance. Development finance for both commercial and residential developments is now much harder to obtain, as too are mortgages for those aspiring to own their own home. Reacting to government policies on the reuse of land and on achieving higher densities, thereby using our land resources more effectively and efficiently, has resulted in the oversupply of certain types of housing – mainly small one- and two-bedroom flats – in the inner urban areas of many cities and major towns. These have often been coupled with some appalling examples of poor design, with developers sometimes citing ‘government policies’ as their excuse. While the reuse of land at higher densities has been an underlying policy theme throughout the first decade of the twenty-first century, so too has been the creation of sustainable communities, creating places in which people wish to live, work and spend their leisure time; these objectives cannot be achieved through poor design. One of the early manifestations of the global credit crunch was falling house prices and the inability of many people, not just in the UK, to repay mortgages that they had been granted, sometimes based on as much as 125 per cent of value. Falling prices meant that many people were in ‘negative equity’, i.e. they owed more on their mortgage than their home was worth, resulting in foreclosures. This prompted government in January 2009 to introduce a Mortgage Rescue Scheme, through which local authorities provided free advice to people with mortgage problems. By November 2009 nearly 11,000 households had received advice under the scheme – of which two-thirds had been helped through tailored information, or referral to their lender or independent money adviser: see press statement by then Housing Minister John Healey MP (12 November 2009), ‘Repossessions must remain the last resort’ (www.communities.gov.uk/ news/citiesandregions/1381054). This initiative seemed to have worked as, on the same day, the Council of Mortgage Lenders revised downwards its forecast


294

Design

on the numbers of repossessions for the year from 65,000 to 48,000 – ‘in recognition of lender forbearance, government measures and the beneficial effect of continuing low interest rates which are helping most borrowers facing difficulty to keep their homes’. In fact, for 2009 as a whole, the total number of repossessions was 46,000, ‘lower [than] the CML’s most recent forecast of 48,000, and significantly fewer than the 75,000 forecast at the start of the year, but still 15 per cent higher than the 40,000 in 2008’ (Council of Mortgage Lenders, 2010). When work on the book text started, in early 2009, several new Planning Policy Statements were expected to be published over the course of the following few months, updating earlier documents or replacing older Planning Policy Guidance notes. Wherever possible the latest information has been incorporated into the relevant chapters. One new PPS that has not been covered – PPS4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth, published 29 December 2009 – is considered later in this chapter. It had also been hoped that the new PPS15, replacing PPGs 15 and 16, Planning and the Historic Environment and Archaeology and Planning respectively, would have been published in time for inclusion in chapter 6, but this did not happen in time for the publishing deadline. This is a pity, as bestpractice guidance for those involved in redeveloping historic sites or previously developed land of potential archaeological significance is very sparse. Clear policy statements are needed. In deciding what to include in this new edition, careful consideration has been given to obtaining a balance between describing and discussing development processes in normal, or good, market conditions and reviewing the traumatic events post-2007, which have had major impacts on the development industry in the United Kingdom. Even at the end of February 2010 there is still considerable uncertainty about the prospects for new developments. Housing targets have been significantly undershot, with the out-turn figures for housing being well below those of previous years and more than 100,000 units short of the government’s target of 240,000 units per annum in 2016. Some housing developers have vowed to eschew the types of development on which they have concentrated over the last few years, namely oneand two-bedroom flats in city and town centres. Redrow has announced that it is returning to ‘traditional’ house building: houses rather than apartments, with improved space standards, including storage facilities, forming the central thrust of its television advertising. On the commercial development front, Hammerson has announced that it sees its development programme focusing on France rather than the UK, as it considers the French ‘economy is in a stronger position to deal with financial uncertainty’, whereas it would want to secure significant pre-lets on its UK sites before launching the developments (Ruddick, 2010). So as to achieve the desired balance, include chapters and sections on new issues and keep the book at a manageable length, it has been necessary to omit some chapters from the first edition, such as those on Tendering and Contracts, and on Marketing and Sales. Nevertheless, it should be stressed that a good understanding of these topics is still just as important as it was in 2002.


15.2

295

Planning and development The town planning system in England and Wales has undergone a major overhaul during the course of the last decade, with increasing regulation and, to some extent, more and improved guidance. In many cases, government policies on making more effective and efficient reuse of land have been grasped too enthusiastically by developers and planners alike. For some the hard lessons have already been learned, or are being learned at the present time, but for others, including the occupiers of many poorly designed buildings, the problems have yet to be faced. Planning Policy Statement 4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth sets out the government’s policies for economic development. In this regard it may be seen as being vital to the country’s recovery from recession. The plan-making policies in the PPS ‘should be taken into account by regional planning bodies in the preparation of revisions to regional spatial strategies, by the Mayor of London in relation to the spatial development strategy for London, and by local planning authorities in the preparation of local development documents’ (CLG, 2009k, p. 2). The policies are also a material consideration which, where relevant, must be taken into account in development management decisions. For the purposes of the PPS, economic development includes development within the B Use Classes, public and community uses, and main town centre uses, as well as other forms of development that aim to achieve at least one of the following objectives:

• • •

provides employment opportunities; generates wealth; or produces or generates an economic output or product. (CLG, 2009k, p. 3)

The PPS does not apply to housing developments, although there may be implications with regard to mixed-use developments containing residential elements. The overarching objective of the PPS is to secure sustainable economic growth by:

• • • • •

building prosperous communities, improving the economic performance of cities, towns, regions, sub-regions and local areas, both urban and rural; reducing the gap in economic growth rates between regions, promoting regeneration and tackling deprivation; delivering more sustainable patterns of development, reducing the need to travel, especially by car, and responding to climate change; promoting the vitality and viability of town and other centres as important places for communities; raising the quality of life and the environment in rural areas by promoting thriving, inclusive and locally distinctive rural communities, while continuing to protect the open countryside for the benefit of all. (based on CLG, 2009k, pp. 3–4)

296

Design

PPS4 replaces a number of other planning policy and guidance documents, including PPG4: Industrial, Commercial Development and Small Firms; PPS6: Planning for Town Centres; parts of PPS7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas; and parts of PPG 13: Transport, which will remain extant until individual local planning authorities prepare local maximum parking standards in line with policy EC8 of PPS4. PPG5: Simplified Planning Zones will be reissued as practice guidance. There is likely to be a continuing policy emphasis on reusing brownfield land, as local authorities finalise their Local Brownfield Strategies, although it is also likely that developers will remain reluctant to tackle some of the more difficult sites. In London the work undertaken to produce a comprehensive inventory of brownfield sites should start to pay dividends, as it becomes easier for both developers and policy makers to identify sites for redevelopment – especially those that would previously have fallen below threshold levels. In early 2010 property values appear to be showing some signs of recovery and the January 2010 RICS Housing Market Survey showed an increasing number of surveyors seeing price rises rather than falls (RICS, 2010c), albeit at reduced levels of buying and selling activity, attributed to the extreme weather conditions in early January. Perhaps rather more important though was the optimism expressed by chartered surveyors about the short-term outlook for both prices and activity. Nevertheless, there is still considerable fragility in the market, which is likely to exist for some time to come and will need to be reflected by developers in preparing development appraisals for new projects. In the commercial sector speculative development activity will probably remain almost nonexistent for some time, as developers concentrate on those projects that are largely, or even fully, pre-let. This may ultimately have the effect of driving up rents as the result of undersupply.

15.3

Land As the essential raw material of all property development projects, the importance of maintaining an adequate supply of land suitable for reuse cannot be overstated. Government policies seek to ensure that land reuse takes place effectively and efficiently. In this regard we have now moved away from simply considering brownfield sites as a resource on which to build more and more homes, recognising that brownfield sites may be important in the archaeological and historic senses, as well as making valuable contributions in terms of biodiversity and flood alleviation. Above all, it is essential for communities to play their many roles in terms of brownfield land, whether it be through tackling visual blight, working with agencies and voluntary groups to find new community-based uses for abandoned sites, or having a say in the future redevelopment of land. Even bringing sites into short-term new uses can make significant contributions to community well-being and, in many cases, help to improve the local economy. Organisations such as Groundwork and other groups, both formal and informal, can provide the means by which these projects, large and small, may be brought to fruition. They can


297

also be the mechanism through which grants can be accessed. For ensuring the longer-term restoration and future of otherwise undevelopable land, bodies such as the Land Restoration Trust, Woodland Trust or the Forestry Commission may be able to offer solutions, potentially with funding from Regional Development Agencies or from other sources. Ensuring that future short- and long-term uses for land meet local needs and aspirations is not the only reason for involving communities in the early stages of planning new development projects. They also need to be closely involved in decision-making processes when contamination and dereliction have to be tackled. There may be several remediation and site-preparation options available to the developer, all of which are likely to involve some degree of noise, dust or increase in heavy-vehicle movements. They are also likely to have different time and cost implications for the project. For example, one remediation option may involve bringing treatment plant onto the site and containing all remediation activity within the curtilage of the site, albeit with some noise emanating from the machinery over the course of a few weeks. However, this may be preferable to excessive numbers of vehicle movements, with possibly one-way traffic flows and temporary traffic lights, for a period of several months.

15.4

Development The process of redeveloping previously developed brownfield land is complex and often very costly. That needs to be reflected in the price paid, or agreed to be paid, for the development site. It is no good a developer paying the equivalent of greenfield land value for a contaminated or derelict site and expecting to be ‘bailed out’ by a public body undertaking the site preparation or providing a grant. This simply will not happen. Valuations and development appraisals must reflect the additional cost of preparing the land to take forward the development project, including the additional financing cost attributable to the longer timescale involved. In the early project-inception stage they will also need to reflect the degree of uncertainty involved due to the lack of knowledge about actual site conditions. These early valuations and appraisals will need to be revised and updated as more becomes known about site conditions and the uncertainty factor is reduced. Reflecting the ‘stigma’ issue in the valuation of contaminated sites, before and after treatment, will continue to be a thorny problem to be addressed by valuers. In the opinion of this author, however, in the UK context if the remediation and site preparation have been carried out properly, stigma should be nonexistent. Key to this, though, is the thorough documentation of all the investigations and works undertaken in preparing the site for development. If the developer attempts to conceal or withhold any of the information, it will serve only to raise suspicions in the minds of occupiers and investors, with resultant adverse impacts on value. It does seem sensible that, in order to meet future demands for development land, both brownfield and greenfield, attention should first be focused on sites that are within, or immediately adjacent to, existing urban envelopes. This is

298

Design

especially so in locations where existing infrastructures, highways, sewers, schools, hospitals, telecoms, etc. have capacity for new development to take place. Where existing infrastructures are insufficient to cope with urban expansion, publicsector agencies are likely to have increasingly important roles as the providers of, or the bankers for, new infrastructure provision. In reactivating development activity there will certainly be increased reliance on public–private partnerships, and that is already to be seen in new initiatives coming out of the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) in England. Government has given the HCA additional funding to stimulate the housing market and one of the new initiatives, Kickstart housing delivery, is targeted at stalled sites, ready to develop, with planning permission already in place. Its aim is to support the construction of high-quality, mixed-tenure housing developments. It is expected that Kickstart will deliver 22,000 new homes, of which 7,000 will be classed as ‘affordable’. Up to February 2010 there have been two bidding rounds for the scheme and shortlisted projects will go through a due diligence process to check evidence, test assumptions, review programme and deliverability, ensure funding is the minimum necessary and of the most appropriate form, consider the market, design, value for money and risk. Each proposal is assessed on an individual basis, to determine the form of public-sector investment support that most suits its need. Investment support helps to address shortfalls in development finance arising from current market conditions, packaged together with funding for affordable housing – including affordable rent, intermediate rent, Rent to HomeBuy, New Build HomeBuy and HomeBuy Direct – to allow the widest possible range of consumer choice to access the housing being developed (Homes and Communities Agency, 2009a). Other initiatives include the Public Land Initiative, with a target of building 1,250 homes, of which 500 will be affordable, on surplus public land. Developers will be selected from an HCA Delivery Partner Panel and development briefs will be prepared to standards that include:

• • •

Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4; Building for Life; and minimum space requirements.

Land will be disposed of through an agreement based upon a joint venture model, which will take account of the value of the land invested, shared risk and returns, and available grant for social housing (see HCA website: www.homesandcommunities.co.uk/public-land-initiative.htm#). An additional 12,500 affordable homes will be created through the National Affordable Homes Programme (NAHP), under which the Homes and Communities Agency expects to invest £8.4bn in affordable housing, and funding is also being made available to enable local authorities to build an estimated 3,900 new affordable homes. CABE worked with the HCA to advise on the quality of the round 1 of the Kickstart bid schemes, for which it was agreed to use ‘Building for Life’ as the means for assessing design quality. Of the 257 schemes that were considered, CABE’s assessments showed that, from a design perspective, ‘a significant


299

proportion of the 136 schemes (54 per cent) being funded by Kickstart should be classified as “very high risk” ’ (CABE, 2009). ‘Very high risk’ represents a score of 9.5 or less out of 20, resulting, for example, in schemes not meeting the standards required for NAHP grant funding. Whilst these results were ‘obviously bleak’, CABE recognised ‘that round 1 took place … at a time of crisis for the house building industry’ and stated that as far as round 2 is concerned, ‘The HCA should only commit public funding to schemes offering much higher standards of design’ (CABE, 2009).

15.5

Design This book has not set out to dictate the author’s ideas on what constitutes good design, as people’s opinion will inevitably vary in this regard. Instead, the objective has been to provide the reader with signposts to literature and guidance that may help to shape design ideas, leading to better and more sustainable development projects. The importance of good public realm cannot be overemphasised as an integral part of development projects. Green space within urban areas, especially where it links areas and opens up new vistas, adds value and contributes enormously to the regeneration of our cities and towns. Crime and anti-social behaviour are, unfortunately, issues that have to be addressed and are often central to the success or failure of development projects. All too often the developer’s response to crime, or the fear thereof, is to harden the boundaries of new developments to the extent that they are almost totally inward-looking, unfriendly to passers-by and can even create an outwardly hostile environment. One of the key components of government policy in seeking to achieve sustainable communities was the mixing of income groups, endorsed in planning policy by requiring developments to incorporate elements of social or affordable housing. The successful integration of different income groups within a scheme requires thorough analysis of local housing need to provide a workable balance of housing types required by the specific local market (The Prince’s Foundation, 2007, p. 114). The argument is that developments designed according to the principles of sustainable urbanism:

• • •

promote social integration by delivering high-quality housing with a choice of tenures and sizes, mitigating the stigma traditionally associated with social housing, and creating popular and desirable communities; reduce social exclusion by creating robust and integrated communities that have access to educational and health-related facilities, as well as normal retail services; encourage community cohesion and stability by enabling households to remain within a given neighbourhood through different life stages. (The Prince’s Foundation, 2007, p. 114)

To some extent this may be achieved through the provision of mixed-tenure housing, although this on its own is rarely enough, as employment opportunities, access to good schooling and health care are equally important. Creating

300

Design

mixed-use developments can be challenging, as the property market has a strong preference for single-use schemes. This is because they are often perceived as delivering greater profitability; thus mixed-use schemes are often developed in response to planning policy. Even when mixed-use schemes take place, there is often separation of uses between different buildings, based on arguments that single-use buildings are simpler to construct, deliver and manage. Single-use buildings are also more straightforward in valuation terms, and property market segmentation means that organisations and funds tend to focus on a specific segment of the property market (retail, commercial, residential, etc.) (The Prince’s Foundation, 2007, p. 119). In some instances, as illustrated in Chapter 3 (Figure 3.8), a degree of tokenism exists, with developers responding to calls for mixed-use projects without any proper evaluation as to the need for the type and form of non-residential accommodation being provided. Whilst, therefore, there may be some resistance within development organisations to true mixed-use projects, with different uses existing side by side within buildings, good-quality market research and analysis of need can work to create sustainable developments. These can produce a variety of both economic and social benefits, such as residents receiving immediate returns in reduced transport costs ‘as daily needs, including work travel, may be avoided altogether or reduced by viable public transport options not available in the mono-use suburbs’ and socially ‘through a wider demographic spread with the means to employ young people and young families locally’ (The Prince’s Foundation, 2007, pp. 119–20). In order for mixed-use developments to succeed, however, they need to provide a range of accommodation of differing sizes, types and tenures, to meet the needs of the community as it changes over the years. Regrettably, the average size of dwellings in England has been shrinking in recent years, while the numbers of rooms has been increasing. The net floor space for all dwellings in 2001 is reported as being 86.9 m2, with the new-build average for the period 1981–2001 being 82.7 m2 (Gallent et al., 2010, p. 9) – giving rise to concerns over the adequacy of space for furniture, storage, preparing food, and privacy, and leading to calls for the reintroduction of minimum space standards. Concerns of this nature need to be addressed from the very beginning when planning new developments and, where projects are being undertaken through private–public partnerships, the public-sector agencies will ‘insist on quality – including minimum space standards and high environmental performance – as well as value for public money’ (Homes and Communities Agency, 2009b, p. 5).

15.6

Conclusion Planning for the future through designing and constructing successful developments, where people want to live, work and spend their leisure time will require high levels of skills, with a multi-disciplinary approach. All too often in recent years design quality and liveability have been sacrificed in favour of increasing densities. Questions have to be asked as to whether some of these very highdensity projects, with little or no external space, whether public or private, will


301

actually stand the test of time. Or will we be faced in 20 or 30 years’ time with part-empty blocks of flats, in which the only occupants are those trapped by economic circumstances and incapable of affording housing elsewhere? All the professions involved in the processes of property development have the responsibility of ensuring that new projects are designed and executed with sustainability in mind, to meet the needs of both present and future generations.

References

Academy for Sustainable Communities (ASC) and English Partnerships (2008) Draft Brownfield Skills Strategy: Securing, retaining and developing the workforce. A consultation report. Leeds: ASC, March. AEA Technology (1996) Specification for Remediation Works at Spencer Street, Northwich, Cheshire. An unpublished report to the developers by AEA Technology. Abingdon: National Environmental Technology Centre. ALGE (2007) Validation of Planning Applications (pilot). Association of Local Government Ecologists. Andrews, K. (2006) Foreword in Preparing Design Codes: A practice manual. London: RIBA Publishing. Angold, P.G., Sadler, J.P., Hill, M.O., Pullin, A., Rushton, S. and Austin, K. (2006) Biodiversity in urban habitat patches. Science of the Total Environment, 360, 196–204. Applied Environmental Research Centre Ltd (1994) Guidance on Preliminary Site Inspection of Contaminated Land. Contaminated Land Report 2. London: Department of the Environment. Ash, H.J. (1991) Soils and vegetation in urban areas. In: P. Bullock and P.J. Gregory (eds.) Soils in the Urban Environment. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 153–70. Association of Geotechnical and Geo-environmental Specialists (2000) Guidelines for Combined Geo-environmental and Geotechnical Investigation. Beckenham: AGS. Association of Geotechnical and Geo-environmental Specialists (2005) Management of Risk Associated with the Preparation of Ground Reports and Guidelines for the Preparation of the Ground Report (published as a single document). Beckenham: AGS. Association of Geotechnical and Geo-environmental Specialists (2007) Guide to Good Practice in Writing Ground Reports. Beckenham: AGS. Atkinson, R. and Helms, G. (eds.) (2007) Securing an Urban Renaissance: Crime, community and British urban policy. Bristol: The Policy Press. Barker, K. (2004) Review of Housing Supply: Delivering stability – Securing our future housing needs, Final Report – Recommendations, March. http://www. hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/barker_review_execsum_91.pdf

References

303

Barker, T.C. and Harris T.R. (1993) A Merseyside Town in the Industrial Revolution: St Helens 1750–1900. London: Cass & Co. Bartke, S. and Schwarze, R. (2009) Mercantile Value Reduction: Accounting for Stigma on Contaminated Land in Germany. Stockholm: 16th Annual European Real Estate Society Conference in Stockholm, paper eres2009_353: http://eres. scix.net/cgi-bin/works/Show?eres2009_353. Baum, A. and Crosby, N. (2007) Property Investment Appraisal, 3rd edn. Oxford: Blackwell. Beer, A.R. and Higgins, C. (2000) Environmental Planning for Site Development, 2nd edn. Spon: London and New York. Benedict, M.A. and McMahon, E.T. (2002) Green infrastructure: Smart conservation for the 21st century. Renewable Resources Journal, 20(3), 12–17 Benedict, M.A. and McMahon, E. T. (2006) Green Infrastructure: Linking landscapes and communities. Washington DC: Island Press. Bradley, R.L., Moffatt, A.J., Vanguelova, E. and Falloon, P. (2005) The Impact of Climate Change on Soil Functions. Project report to Department for Environmental Food and Rural Affairs. Silsoe: National Soil Resources Institute, Cranfield University. Bradshaw, A.D. and Chadwick M.J. (1980) The Restoration of Land. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific. BREEAM (2009) See www.breeam.org Breen, A. and Rigby, D. (1994) Waterfronts: Cities reclaim their edge. New York: McGraw-Hill. Bridgman, H.A., Warner, R.F. and Dodson, J. (1995) Urban Biophysical Environments. Oxford: Oxford University Press. British Standards Institution (1999) Code of Practice for Site Investigations – BS5930:1999. London: BSI Group. British Standards Institution (2001) Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites: Code of practice – BS 10175:2001. London: BSI Group. British Waterways (2009) England’s Historic Waterways: A working heritage. Watford: British Waterways. Brook, D. and Marker, B. (2008) Planning for development on land that is potentially prone to subsidence in England. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrology. 41(3), 403–408. Brown, L.J., Dixon, D. and Gilham, O. (2009) Urban Design for an Urban Century: Placemaking for people. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Buglife –The Invertebrate Conservation Trust (2009) Brownfields. http://www. buglife.org.uk/conservation/currentprojects/Habitats+Action/Brownfields/ allaboutbrownfields.htm (accessed 18 November 2009). Bullock, P and Gregory, P.J. (eds.) (1991) Soils in the Urban Environment. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific. British Urban Regeneration Association (BURA) (2001) Breaking Old Ground: The BURA Guide to Contaminated Land Assessment and Development. London: BURA. CABE (Commission for Architecture in the Built Environment) (2006) Strategic Urban Design: Delivering place through design codes. Report of the Design Task Group, November. London: CABE.

304

References

CABE (Commission for Architecture in the Built Environment (2007) Building for Life: Delivering great places to live. London: CABE. CABE (Commission for Architecture in the Built Environment) (2009) Kickstart under scrutiny. Press statement, 18 December. London: CABE. CA/SNH (2002) Landscape Character Assessment: Guidance for England and Scotland. Wetherby: Countryside Agency Publications. Cass, R. (2003) Creating multi-functional landscapes: A more enlightened approach to land reclamation. In: H.M. Moore, H.P. Fox and S. Elliot (eds.) Land Reclamation: Extending the boundaries. Lisse: Balkema, pp.55–63. Castle Point (n.d.) Development Densities. Topic paper, Borough of Castle Point. CBA (Council for British Archaeology) (2009) Archaeology and Buildings. CBA Factsheet 7. York: CBA. (http://www.britarch.ac.uk) Chan, H.K.N. (2001) Contaminated Land Valuation and the Problem of Stigma. Unpublished PhD thesis, Graduate School of the Environment, Macquarrie University. Cherry, G.E. (1974) The Evolution of British Town Planning. Leighton Buzzard: Leonard Hill. CIRIA (Construction Industry Research and Information Association) (1995) Remedial Treatment for Contaminated Land. Special Publication 103: volume III in the 12-volume series Site Investigation and Assessment. London: CIRIA. CIRIA (Construction Industry Research and Information Association (2002) Brownfields: Managing the development of previously developed land. A client’s guide. London: CIRIA. CIRIA (Construction Industry Research and Information Association) (2007) Assessing Risks posed by Hazardous Ground Gases to Buildings (revised). Report number C665. London: CIRIA. CIRIA (Construction Industry Research and Information Association) (2008) Archaeology and Development: A good-practice guide to managing risk and maximising benefit. Report number C672. London: CIRIA. City of Edinburgh Council (2008) Edinburgh’s Environment: State of the environment audit. Baseline Report, May. CLG (Communities and Local Government [Department of]) (2006a) Previously Developed Land that may be Available for Development – England, 2005. London: ODPM. CLG (Communities and Local Government [Department of]) (2006b) Housing. Planning Policy Statement 3. London: CLG. CLG (Communities and Local Government [Department of]) (2007a) Homes for the Future: More affordable, more sustainable. Housing Green Paper. London: TSO, July. CLG (Communities and Local Government [Department of]) (2007b) Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessments: Practice guidance. London: CLG, July. CLG (Communities and Local Government [Department of]) (2007c) Building a Greener Future: Policy statement. London: CLG, July. CLG (Communities and Local Government [Department of]) (2007d) Planning for a Sustainable Future. White Paper. London, CLG, 21 May.

References

305

CLG (Communities and Local Government [Department of]) (2007e) Summary of Responses to the Planning and Pollution Control Interface Consultation. London: CLG, April. CLG (Communities and Local Government [Department of]) (2007f ) Planning and Climate Change: Supplement to Planning Policy Statement 1. Norwich: The Stationery Office. CLG (Communities and Local Government [Department of]) (2008a) Securing the Future Supply of Brownfield Land. Government response to English Partnerships’ recommendations on the National Brownfield Strategy. London: CLG, March. CLG (Communities and Local Government [Department of]) (2008b) Living a Greener Future. Consultation paper. London: CLG, April. CLG (Communities and Local Government [Department of]) (2008c) Definition of Zero Carbon Homes and Non-Domestic Buildings. Consultation document. London: CLG, December. CLG (Communities and Local Government [Department of]) (2008d) The Code for Sustainable Homes: Setting the standard in sustainability for new homes. London: CLG, February. CLG (Communities and Local Government [Department of]) (2008e) Model Planning Conditions for Development on Land Affected by Contamination. Letter to all Chief Planning Officers in England. London: CLG, May. CLG (Communities and Local Government [Department of]) (2008f ) Development and Flood Risk. Planning Policy Statement 25 (PPS25). London: CLG. CLG (Communities and Local Government [Department of]) (2008g) Guidance on the Permeable Surfacing of Front Gardens. www.communities.gov.uk/ publications/planningandbuilding/pavingfront (accessed 25 January 2010). CLG (Communities and Local Government [Department of]) (2009a) Eco-towns. Planning Policy Statement: Supplement to Planning Policy Statement 1. London: CLG, July. CLG (Communities and Local Government [Department of]) (2009b) House Building, June Quarter 2009, England and earlier reports. London: CLG, February. CLG (Communities and Local Government [Department of]) (2009c) Worldclass Places: The government’s strategy for improving quality of place. London: CLG, May. CLG (Communities and Local Government [Department of]) (2009d) ‘New government strategy heralds minimum design standard for all new public buildings’. Press notice, 12 May. CLG (Communities and Local Government [Department of]) (2009e) Summary of Responses to Consultation on Definition of Zero Carbon Homes and NonDomestic Buildings. London: CLG, July. CLG (Communities and Local Government [Department of]) (2009f ) Code for Sustainable Homes: Technical guide, version 2. London: CLG, May. CLG (Communities and Local Government [Department of]) (2009g) Arrangements for Handling Heritage Applications: Notification and directions by the Secretary of State (England) Direction 2009. Communities and Local Government Circular 08/2009. London: CLG.

306

References

CLG (Communities and Local Government [Department of]) (2009h) Arrangements for Handling Heritage Applications: Notification and directions by the Secretary of State (England) Direction 2009. Letter to Chief Planning Officers in England. London: CLG. CLG (Communities and Local Government [Department of]) (2009i) Planning for the Historic Environment. Consultation paper on a new Planning Policy Statement 15. London: CLG, July. CLG (Communities and Local Government [Department of]) (2009j) Infrastructure Planning Commission: Implementation route map. London: CLG, December. CLG (Communities and Local Government [Department of]) (2009k) Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth. Planning Policy Statement 4. London: CLG, December. CLG (Communities and Local Government [Department of]) (2010a) Land Use Change Statistics (England) 2008: Provisional estimates. London: CLG, 27 January. CLG (Communities and Local Government [Department of]) (2010b) Planning for our Historic Environment. Planning Policy Statement 5. London: CLG, 23 March. CLG (Communities and Local Government [Department of]) and the Commission for Architecture in the Built Environment (CABE) (2006) Preparing Design Codes: A practice manual. London: RIBA Publishing. CLG (Communities and Local Government [Department of]) and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) (2008) Improving the Planning and Pollution Interface. The government’s response to the joint CLG/DEFRA consultation. London: CLG, March. CLG et al. (Communities and Local Government [Department of], Department of Health and the Department for Work and Pensions) (2008) Lifetime Homes, Lifetime Neighbourhoods: A national strategy for housing in an ageing society. London: CLG, February. Coleman, A. (2009) Climate change and flood risk methodologies in the UK. In: S. Davoudi, J. Crawford and A. Mehmood (eds.) Planning for Climate Change. London: Earthscan, pp. 205–16. Council of Europe (COE) (2000) European Landscape Convention, Florence conventions. http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/html/176.htm (accessed 25 January 2010). Council of Mortgage Lenders (2010) Mortgage arrears and possessions declined in fourth quarter of 2009. Press release, 11 February: http://www.cml.org.uk/ cml/media/press/2541. CPRE (Campaign to Protect Rural England) (2008) Eco-towns: Living a greener future. A response by CPRE to the CLG consultation paper. London: CPRE, June. Craul, P.J. (1999) Urban Soils: Applications and practices. New York: Wiley. CRBE, Centre for Research in the Built Environment, Nottingham Trent University (1994) Sampling Strategies for Contaminated Land. Contaminated Land Report No. 4. London: Department of the Environment. Davies, Z.G., Fuller, R.A., Loram, A., Irvine, N.K., Sims, V. and Gaston, K.J. (2009) A national-scale inventory of resource provision for biodiversity within domestic gardens. Biological Conservation, 142, 761–71.

References

307

Davoudi, S., Crawford, J. and Mehmood, A. (2009) Planning for Climate Change: Strategies for mitigation and adaptation for spatial planners. London: Earthscan. DCMS (Department for Culture, Media and Sport) and CLG (Communities and Local Government [Department of] (2009) World-class Places – Action Plan. Crown copyright. DCMS (Department for Culture, Media and Sport) (2010) The Government’s Statement on the Historic Environment for England 2010. London: DCMS. Defra (2005) The UK Sustainable Development Strategy CM. 6447. Norwich: The Stationery Office. Defra (2007a) Hedgerow Survey Handbook: A standard procedure for local surveys in the UK. London: Defra Publications. Defra (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) (2009a) Construction Code of Practice for the Sustainable Use of Soils on Construction Sites. London: Defra Publications. Defra (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) (2009b) Safeguarding our Soils: A strategy for England. London: Defra Publications. Defra (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) (2009c) Sustainable Development Indicators in your Pocket. London: Defra, July. Defra (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) (2009d) Waterways for Everyone: The government’s strategy for the inland waterways of England and Wales. Consultation paper. London: Defra Publications. Defra (2010) Project Summary. From MAGIC – Multi-Agency Geographical Information for the Countryside: http://www.magic.gov.uk/projectsummary. htm (accessed 18 January 2010). Department for Transport (2007) Manual for Streets. London: Thomas Telford (for the Department for Transport and CLG). Department of the Environment (NI) (1997) PPS2 Planning and Nature Conservation. Belfast: Department of the Environment. DETR (Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions) (1998) Development on Unstable Land. Planning Policy Guidance Note 14, Annex 2: Subsidence and Planning. Norwich: The Stationery Office. DETR (Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions) (2000a) Housing. Planning Policy Guidance Note 3. London: The Stationery Office. DETR (Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions) (2000b) Our Towns and Cities: The future – Delivering an urban renaissance. Urban White Paper. London: The Stationery Office. Dettmar, J. and Ganser, K. (1999) Industrie Natur: Okologie und Gartenkunst im Emscher Park. Stuttgart: Ulmer. Dlugolecki, A. (2004) A Changing Climate for Insurance: A summary report for chief executives and policy makers. London: Association of British Insurers. DoE (Department of the Environment)/Welsh Office (1990) Development on Unstable Land. Planning Policy Guidance Note 14: Norwich: The Stationery Office. Duany Plater-Zyberk & Company (2009) Hertfordshire Guide to Growth – 2021: How Should the County Grow? University of Hertfordshire Press.

308

References

ECOTEC and EAU (Environmental Advisory Unit) (1993) The WDA Manual on the Remediation of Contaminated Land. Cardiff: Welsh Development Agency. English Heritage (2001) Enabling Development and the Conservation of Heritage Assets: Policy statement and practical guide to assessment. London: English Heritage, June. English Heritage (2008) Conservation Principles: Policies and guidance for the sustainable management of the historic environment. London: English Heritage. English Heritage (2010) Planning for the Historic Environment: Practice Guide. London: English Heritage, March. English Partnerships (2003) Towards a National Brownfield Strategy. Research findings for the Deputy Prime Minister. London: English Partnerships, September. English Partnerships (2006) The Brownfield Guide: A practitioner’s guide to land reuse in England, English Partnerships (now Homes & Communities Agency), London. English Partnerships (2007) National Brownfield Strategy: Recommendations to government. Submission made to the Department of Communities and Local Government, May. English Partnerships (2008a) Contamination and Dereliction Remediation Costs. Best Practice Note 27 (BPN27). London: English Partnerships (now Homes & Communities Agency). English Partnerships (2008b) Modern methods of construction. Homes and Communities Agency: http://www.englishpartnerships.co.uk/mmc.htm. English Partnerships and the Housing Corporation (2007) Urban Design Compendium, volumes 1 and 2. Guidance documents; volume 1 by LlewelynDavies, volume 2 by Roger Evans Associates, Homes & Communities Agency, London. Essex County Council and Essex Planning Officers’ Association (2005) Essex Design Guide. November. EuroDemo (2007) D3-2 Status Report on Existing and Recent Projects for Technology Demonstration. Interim report of a project co-funded by the European Commission within the Sixth Framework Programme 2002–2006, February. Evans, E.P., Thorne, C.R., Saul, A., Ashley, R., Sayers, P.N., Watkinson, A., Penning-Rowsell, E.C. and Hall, J.W. (2003) Future Flooding: An analysis of future risks of flooding and coastal erosion for the UK between 2030 and 2100. London: Office of Science and Technology, Department of Trade and Industry. Eyre, M.D., Luff, M.L.. and Woodward, J.C. (2003) Beetles (Coleoptera) on brownfield sites in England: An important conservation resource? Journal of Insect Conservation, 7(4), 223–31. Farrow, P. (2009) Investors pile into commercial property as ISA sales hit record levels. Daily Telegraph, 1 December. Fitzpatrick, M. (2008) An introduction to building design. Design Council: http:// www.designcouncil.org.uk/About - Design/Design - Disciplines/Building design/. Gallent, N., Madeddu, M. and Mace, A. (2010) Internal Housing Space Standards in Italy and England: Comparing the ‘conditions’ of regulation. One of

References

309

the series ‘Findings in Built and Rural Environments’ (FiBRE). London: RICS Research. Gibson, C. (1998) R273 – Brownfield: Red data – The values artificial habitats have for uncommon invertebrates. Peterborough: English Nature. Gilbert, O.L. and Anderson, P. (1998) Habitat Creation and Repair. Oxford: Oxford University Press Gill, S.E., Handley, J.F., Ennos, A.R. and Pauleit, S. (2007) Adapting cities for climate change: The role of the green infrastructure. Built Environment, 33, 115–33. Glasson, J., Therivel, R. and Chadwick, A. (2005) Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment, 3rd edn. London: Taylor and Francis. Graham, D. (2001) Contaminated Land: A funder’s view. Paper presented at CIRIA Conference on Land Contamination: ‘How to turn risks into opportunities’, London, 25 September. Greater Manchester Biodiversity Project (2009) ‘Black redstart species Action Plan 2009’. www.gmbp.org.uk/site/images/stories/black%20redstart%20 bap_09.pdf (accessed 19 November 2009). Groundwork (2005) ‘From eyesore to allotment for health’. Project summary report. Manchester: Groundwork. Groundwork (2006a) ‘Sustainable Future for our industrial estates’. Project summary report. Manchester: Groundwork. Groundwork (2006b) ‘A green fingered approach’. Project summary report. Manchester: Groundwork. Groundwork (2009) ‘How green is my Medlock Valley?’ Project summary report. Manchester: Groundwork. Guthrie, C. (1996) W.J. Yarwood & Sons Ltd., Shipbuilders of Northwich 1896– 1966. Northwich and District Historical Society. Hadfield, C. (1979) British Canals: An illustrated history, 6th edn. Newton Abbot: David & Charles. Hadfield, C. and Biddle, G. (1970) The Canals of North West England (2 volumes). Newton Abbot: David & Charles. Hall, P. (2005) The Land Fetish. TCPA Tomorrow Series, Paper 16. London: Town and Country Planning Association. Handley, J.F. and Gill, S.E. (2009) Woodlands helping society to adapt. In: D.J. Read, P.H. Freer-Smith, J.I.L. Morison, N. Hanley, C.C. West and P. Snowdon (eds,) Combating Climate Change – A vote for UK forests. Edinburgh: The Stationery Office, pp. 180–94. Handley, J.F., Griffiths, E.J., Hill, S.L. and Howe, J.M.(1998) Land restoration using an ecologically informed and participative approach. In: H.R. Fox, H.M. Moore and A.D. McIntosh (eds.) Land Reclamation: Achieving sustainable benefits. Rotterdam: Balkema. Hannaford, J. and Marsh, T.J. (2007) High-flow and flood trends in a network of undisturbed catchments in the UK. International Journal of Climatology, 28, 1325–38. Hass-Klau, C., Crampton, G., Dowland, C. and Nold, I (1999) Streets as Living Space: Helping public places play their proper role. London: Landor Publishing.

310

References

Healey, J. (2009) John Healey unveils proposals for second wave of eco-towns. CLG press notice, 1 December. Helical Bar (2009) Annual Report and Accounts. London: Helical Bar. HM Treasury, HM Revenue and Customs, and Department for Communities and Local Government (2006) Planning-gain Supplement: Summary of consultation responses, December. Downloadable from http://www.hm-treasury.gov. uk/d/pbr06_pgs_summaryofresponses_220.pdf HM Treasury, HM Revenue and Customs, and Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2005) Planning-gain Supplement: A consultation, December. Downloadable from http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www. hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/F59/D3/pbr05_planninggain_449.pdf Homes and Communities Agency (2009a) Kickstart Housing Delivery: Unlocking stalled sites. London: HCA, September. Homes and Communities Agency (2009b) Creating Thriving Communities. London: HCA, June. Hoskins, W.G. (1970) The Making of the English Landscape. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. Hough, M. (2004) Cities and Natural Process: A basis for sustainability, 2nd edn. London and New York: Routledge. Housing Corporation (2003) Capital Funding Guide. London: The Housing Corporation (now Homes and Communities Agency). Howard, J. (2009) Climate change mitigation and adaptation in developed nations: A critical perspective on the adaptation turn in urban climate planning. In: S. Davoudi, J. Crawford and A. Mehmood (eds.) Planning for Climate Change. London: Earthscan, pp. 19–32. Hughes, J. and Wood, C. (1996) Formal and informal environmental assessment reports: Their role in UK planning decisions. Land Use Policy, 13(2), 101–113. Hulme, M., Jenkins, G., Lu, X., Turnpenny, J., Mitchell, T., Jones, R., Lowe, J., Murphy, J., Hassell, D., Boorman, P., McDonald, R. and Hill, S. (2002) Climate Change Scenarios for the United Kingdom: The UKCIPO2 scientific report. Norwich: Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. IPCC (2007) Climate Change 2007: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Perry, M.L., Canziani, O.F., Palutikof, J.P., Van der Linden, P.J. and Hanson, C.E. (eds.) Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. IWAC (The Inland Waterways Advisory Council) (2008) Britain’s Inland Waterways: Balancing the needs of navigation and aquatic wildlife. London: IWAC. Jackson, T. (2000) The Effect of Previous Environmental Contamination on Industrial Real-estate Prices. Paper presented at the Valuation 2000 conference, Las Vegas, July, pp. 59–68. Jacobs, A.B. (1993) Great Streets. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Jay, S. and Handley, J. (2001) The application of environmental impact assessment to land reclamation practice. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 44(6), 765–82.

References

311

Jenkins, G.J., Murphy, J.M., Sexton, D.S., Lowe. J.A., Jones, P. and Kilsby, C.G. (2009) UK Climate Projections: Briefing report. Exeter: Met Office Hadley Centre. Jenkins, G.J., Perry, M.C. and Prior, M.J.O. (2007) The Climate of the United Kingdom and Recent Trends. Exeter: Met Office Hadley Centre. JNCC (2007) Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey: A technique for environmental audit. Revised reprint 2003; reprinted 2007. Peterborough: JNCC. Jones, C., Wood, C. and Dipper, B. (1998) Environmental assessment in the UK planning process: A review of practice. Town Planning Review, 69(3), 315–39. Juvara, M. (2008) Paved with gold: Top ten ideas to make urban design really count. Urban Design, 105, 23–25. Kambites, C. and Owen, S. (2006) Renewed prospects for green infrastructure planning in the UK. Planning, Practice and Research, 21(4), 483–96. Kattwinkel, M., Strauss, B., Biedermann, R. and Kleyer, M. (2009) Modelling multi-species response to landscape dynamics: Mosaic cycles support urban biodiversity. Landscape Ecology, 24, 929–41. Kelday, S-B., Brookers, A. and Morris, P. (2009) Water. In: P. Morris and R. Therivel (eds.) Methods of Environmental Impact Assessment, 3rd edn., pp. 235–93. Kempton, J. and Syms, P. (2009) Modern methods of construction: Implications for housing asset management in the RSL sector. Structural Survey, 27(1), 36–45. Kennedy, P.J. (1998) Investment Valuation of Contaminated Land and UK Practice: A study with special reference to former gasworks. Unpublished PhD thesis, Nottingham Trent University. King Sturge (2009) Economic and Property Market Review. London: King Sturge, September. Kinnard, W.N. Jr. (1995) The Effects of Pollution and Contamination on Real Property Values: Selected references. Storrs, CT: Real Estate Counselling Group of Connecticut. Kinnard, W.N. Jr. and Beron, G.L. (1987) The impact of a release of radioactive materials on sales price of proximate residential properties. Storrs, CT: Real Estate Counselling Group of Connecticut. (Also ‘Supplement’, July 1989). Cited in The Effects of Pollution and Contamination on Real Property Values: Selected references, Real Estate Counselling Group of Connecticut, 1995. Kinnard, W.N. Jr., DeLottie, J.W., Geckler, M.B. and Noble, B.H. (1995) The impact of widespread, long-term soil contamination on residential property values: A case study. Paper presented to the 1995 Annual Meeting of the American Real Estate Society, Real Estate Counselling Group of Connecticut. Knight, R. (2009) Landscape and Visual. In: P. Morris and R. Therivel (eds.) Methods of Environmental Impact Assessment, 3rd edn. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 120–44. Laidler, D.W., Bryce, A.J. and Wilbourn, P. (2002) Brownfields: Managing the development of previously developed land – a client’s guide. Report C578. London: CIRIA.

312

References

Landis, J. (1998) An overview of GIS technology in real estate. In: GIS in Real Estate: Integrating, analyzing and presenting locational information, Illinois: Appraisal Institute. Land Restoration Trust (2009) Phoenix Park, Thurnscoe, South Yorkshire. Fact sheet. Warrington: LRT. Langenhoff, A. (2007) In situ bioremediation technologies: Experiences in the Netherlands and future European challenges. EuroDemo-TNO, November. LI/IEMA (Landscape Institute with the Institute for Environmental Management and Assessment) (2002) Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, 2nd edn. London and New York: Spon Press. Ling, C., Handley, J. and Rodwell, J. (2007) Restructuring the post-industrial landscape: A multifunctional approach. Landscape Research, 32(3), 285–309. McAllister, I. (2009) Sustainability: Zero-carbon homes. Building, 17 April. McCulloch, C (2007) Government scraps planning gain supplement. Building, 9 October: www.building.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=3097122#ixzz0O9klPWVj Meinig, D.W. (1979) The Interpretation of Ordinary Landscapes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Miller, C., 2001, The environmental roles of town and country planning. In: C. Miller (ed.) Planning and Environmental Protection. Oxford: Hart Publishing, pp. 1–18. Monaghan, A. (2010) ‘House price hopes boosted as recession ends’. Daily Telegraph, Business section, 25 January 2010, p. 1. Mundy, B. (1988) Bibliography and current state of knowledge of the effect of hazardous and toxic waste on property values. Seattle: Mundy & Associates. Cited in The Effects of Pollution and Contamination on Real Property Values: Selected references. Storrs, CT: Real Estate Counselling Group of Connecticut, 1995. Mundy, B. (1991) Annotated bibliography. Seattle: Mundy & Associates. Cited in The Effects of Pollution and Contamination on Real Property Values: Selected references, Storrs, CT: Real Estate Counselling Group of Connecticut, 1995. Mundy, B. (1992a) Hazardous and toxic materials, and property valuation: Bibliography. Seattle: Mundy & Associates. Cited in The Effects of Pollution and Contamination on Real Property Values: Selected references, Storrs, CT: Real Estate Counselling Group of Connecticut, 1995. Mundy, B. (1992b) Stigma and Value. The Appraisal Journal, January, 7–13. Mundy, B. (1992c) The impact of hazardous materials on property value. The Appraisal Journal, April, 155–62. Murray, G. (2009) Visual blight audit: Peel and Barnfield. E-mail communication from the Neighbourhood Services Co-ordinator, Accent Regeneration. Natural England (2005) Citation: Canvey Wick SSSI. Natural England: www. english-nature.org.uk/citation/citation_photo/2000497.pdf (accessed 18 November 2009). Neupane, A. and Gustavson, K. (2008) Urban property values and contaminated sites: A hedonic analysis of Sydney, Nova Scotia. Journal of Environmental Management, 88(4), 1212–20. Newman, O. (1996) Creating Defensible Space. Washington DC: US Department of Housing and Urban Development.

References

313

Nicholson, R. (1972) Nicholson’s Guides to the Waterways: North West. London: British Waterways Board. ODPM (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister) (2000) Planning Policy Guidance 3: Housing. London: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. ODPM (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister) (2003) Sustainable Communities: Building for the future. London: ODPM. ODPM (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister) (2004a) Sustainable Development in Rural Areas. Planning Policy Statement 7. Norwich: The Stationery Office. ODPM (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister) (2004b) Safer Places: The planning system and crime prevention. London: ODPM. ODPM (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister) (2005a) Delivering Sustainable Development. Planning Policy Statement 1. London: ODPM. ODPM (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister) (2005b) Biodiversity and Geological Conservation. Planning Policy Statement 9. Norwich: The Stationery Office. ODPM (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister) (2006a). Planning for Biodiversity and Geological Conservation: A guide to good practice. Wetherby: ODPM Publications. ODPM (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister) (2006b) Design Coding in Practice: An evaluation. Urban Research Summary 22. Wetherby: ODPM Publications. OJEU (2008) Waste framework directive. Official Journal of the European Union, 22 November. Oke, T.R. (1987) Boundary Layer Climates. London: Routledge. Patchin, P. (1988) Valuation of contaminated properties. The Appraisal Journal, January, 7–16. Patchin, P. (1991a) Contaminated properties: Stigma revisited. The Appraisal Journal, April, 167–72. Patchin, P. (1991b) The valuation of contaminated properties: Four case studies. Real Estate Issues: Environmental conditions in real estate, 16(2), 50–54. Patchin, P.J. (1994) Contaminated properties and the sales comparison approach. The Appraisal Journal, July, LXII, 3. Pauleit, S., Slinn, P., Handley, J. and Lindley, S. (2003) Promoting the natural greenstructure of towns and cities: English Nature’s accessible natural greenspace standards model. Built Environment, 29(2), 157–70. Peston, R. (2008) Who Runs Britain? London: Hodder and Stoughton. Pitt, M. (2008) Learning Lessons from the 2007 Floods. An independent review by Sir Michael Pitt (final report). London: Cabinet Office. Places Matter! The Economic Value of Urban Design (2007) A research report by AMION Consulting and Taylor Young for RENEW Northwest and the Northwest Regional Development Agency: www.placesmatter.co.uk Places Matter! The Economic Value of Urban Design (2009) A further research report by AMION Consulting and Taylor Young for RENEW Northwest and the Northwest Regional Development Agency, taking account of changes in the economic climate. www.placesmatter.co.uk Price Waterhouse (1993) Evaluation of Urban Development Grant, Urban Regeneration Grant and City Grant. Part of the Inner City Research Programme for the Department of the Environment. London: HMSO.

314

References

RCEP (Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution) (2007) The Urban Environment, Twenty-sixth Report. Norwich: The Stationery Office. RICS (Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors) (1995) Environmental factors, contamination and valuation. In: Appraisal and Valuation Manual. London: RICS. RICS (Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors) (2008) Consultation Response to the Government’s Proposals on Eco-towns. London: RICS, 20 June. RICS (Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors) (2010a) Valuation of development land. Valuation Information Paper 12. London: RICS. RICS (Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors) (2010b) Contamination, the Environment and Sustainability: Their implications for chartered surveyors and their clients, 3rd edn. Guidance note. London: RICS. RICS (Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors) (2010c) RICS Housing Market Survey United Kingdom. London: RICS, February. Roland, U., Holzer, F., Buchenhorst, D. and Kopinke, F-D. (2005) Radio-wavesupported Cleaning of a Hydrocarbon-contaminated Soil: Results of a field test and general conclusions. Paper presented at the Consoil conference, Bordeaux. Ross, K. (2005) Modern Methods of House Construction: A surveyor’s guide. Garston: BRE Trust. Roulac, S.E. (1998) Introduction to GIS in Real Estate: Integrating, analyzing and presenting locational information. Illinois: Appraisal Institute. Roy, M., Pascual, M. and Levin, S. (2004) Competitive coexistence in a dynamic landscape. Theoretical Population Biology, 66(4), 341–53. Royal Town Planning Institute (1999) Good Practice Guide: Planning for biodiversity. London: Royal Town Planning Institute. Ruddick, G. (2010) Property developer focuses on France as UK demand falters. Daily Telegraph, 23 February, Business section p. 10. Rydin, Y. (2009) Sustainable construction and design in UK planning. In: S. Davoudi, J. Crawford and A. Mehmood (eds.) Planning for Climate Change. London: Earthscan, pp. 181–90. Rydin, Y., Amjad, U. and Whitaker, M. (2007) Environmentally sustainable construction: Knowledge and learning in London planning departments. Planning Theory and Practice, 8(3), 363–80. Schneider, R.H. and Kitchen, T. (2007) Crime Prevention and the Built Environment. In the RTPI Library Series. London: Routledge. Schulze Baing, A. and Syms, P. (2009) Brownfield Regeneration and Social Change. A research report for the Homes and Communities Agency. Manchester: University of Manchester, November. Secured by Design (2004) Secured by Design Principles. UK: ACPO Crime Prevention Initiatives Limited. Shaw, R., Colley, M. and Connell, R. (2007) Climate Change Adaptation by Design: A guide for sustainable communities. London: Town and Country Planning Association. Shaw, R., Marrion, J. and Webb, R. (2006) Sustainable Energy by Design: A guide for sustainable communities. London: Town and Country Planning Association. Shead, J. (2003) Dream Weaver. In: Waterways World. Burton-on-Trent: Waterways Publications, April.

References

315

Smith, C. and Levermore, G. (2008) Designing urban spaces and buildings to improve sustainability and quality of life in a warmer world. Energy Policy, 36, 4558–62. Smith, R.M., Gaston, K.J., Warren, P.H., and Thompson, K. (2005) Urban domestic gardens (V): Relationships between landcover composition, housing and landscape. Landscape Ecology, 20, 235–53. Spirn, A.W. (1984) The Granite Garden: Urban nature and human design. Oxford: Marston Book Services. Steeds, J.E., Shepherd, J. and Barry, D.L. (1996) A Guide for Safe Working on Contaminated Sites. Research report R132. London: CIRIA. Stott, P.A., Stone, D.A. and Allen, M.R. (2004) Human contribution to the European heatwave of 2003. Nature, 432, 610–614. Swart, R. and Raes, E. (2007) Making integration of adaptation and mitigation work: Mainstreaming into sustainable development policies? Climate Policy, 7, 288–303. Syms, P. (1993) Piccadilly Village, Manchester: A case study in waterside urban renewal. In: J. Berry, S. McGreal and B. Deddis (eds.) Urban Regeneration: Property investment and development. London: E & F.N. Spon. Syms, P. (1996) Contaminated land and other forms of environmental impairment: An approach to valuation. Journal of Property Valuation and Investment, 14(2), 38–47. Syms, P. (1997) Contaminated Land: The practice and economics of redevelopment. Oxford: Blackwell Science. Syms, P. (2002) Land, Development and Design, 1st edn. Oxford: Blackwell. Syms, P. (2004) Previously Developed Land: Industrial activities and contamination. Oxford: Blackwell. Syms, P (2008) Foreword to Contamination and Dereliction Remediation Costs. Best Practice Note 27. London: English Partnerships. Syms, P. and Knight, P. (2000) Building Homes on Used Land. Research undertaken for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. London: RICS Books. Syms, P. and Weber, B.R (2003) International Approaches to the Valuation of Land and Property affected by Contamination. Research Review Series. London: RICS Foundation. TCPA (Town and Country Planning Association) (2009) First eco-town sites get the green light. Town & Country Planning, 78(7/8), 295–7. The Institute of Petroleum (1998) Guidelines for Investigation and Remediation of Petroleum Retail Sites. London: The Institute of Petroleum. The Prince’s Foundation for the Built Environment (2000) Sustainable Urban Extensions: Planned through design. Paper describing a type of participatory planning exercise. London: The Prince’s Foundation. The Prince’s Foundation for the Built Environment (2007) Valuing Sustainable Urbanism. Report by Savills plc with support from English Partnerships. London: The Prince’s Foundation. Therivel, R. and Morris, P, (2009) Introduction, in P. Morris and R. Therivel (eds.) Methods of Environmental Impact Assessment, 3rd edn. London and New York: Routledge. Three Regions Climate Change Group (2005) Adapting to Climate change: A checklist for development. London: Greater London Authority.

316

References

Tratalos, J., Fuller, R.A., Warren, P.H., Davies, R.G. and Gaston, K.J. (2007) Urban form, biodiversity potential and ecosystem services. Landscape and Urban Planning, 83, 308–17. Tromans, S. and Turrall-Clarke, R. (1994) Contaminated Land. London: Sweet & Maxwell. Tzoulas, K., Korpela, K., Venn, S., Yli-Pelkonen, V., Kazmierczak, A., Niemela, J. et al. (2007) Promoting ecosystem health in urban areas using green infrastructure: A literature review. Landscape and Urban Planning, 81, 167–78. UK Biodiversity Action Plan (n.d.) UK Biodiversity Action Plan. www.ukbap.org. uk/default.aspx (accessed 10 November 2009). Urban Task Force (1998) Prospectus 07.98, Ministerial terms of reference and outline of the task ahead. Urban Task Force (1999) Towards an Urban Renaissance. Final report of the Urban Task Force. London: E & F.N. Spon. Urban Task Force (2005) Towards a Strong Urban Renaissance: The urban renaissance six years on. Independent report. London: Urban Task Force. URBED (2004) Biodiversity by Design; A guide for sustainable communities. London, Town and Country Planning Association. Walker, J. (2007) Tariffs for Infrastructure Delivery: Building better communities through a Business Plan Approach. A ‘Tomorrow Series’ paper. London: Town and Country Planning Association. Weber, B.R. (1997) The valuation of contaminated land, Journal of Real Estate Research, 14(3), 379–98. West, C.C. and Gawith, M.J. (eds.) (2005) Measuring Progress: Preparing for climate change through the UK Climate Impacts Programme. Oxford: UKCIP. Whitford, V., Ennos, A.R. and Handley, J.F. (2001) City form and natural process: Indicators for the ecological performance of urban areas and their application to Merseyside, UK. Landscape and Urban Planning, 57(2), 91–103. Wilby, R.L. (2003) Past and projected trends in London’s urban heat island. Weather. 58, 251–60. Wilby, R.L. (2007) A review of climate change impacts on the built environment. Built Environment. 33, 31–45. Wilson, A.R. (1996) Emerging approaches to impaired property valuation. The Appraisal Journal, April, 155–70. Wood, C., Dipper, B. and Jones, C. (2000) Auditing the assessment of environmental impacts of planning projects. J. Environmental Planning and Management, 43(1), 23–47. Wood, G.A., Kibblewhite, M.G., Hannan, J.A., Harris, J.A. and Leeds-Harrison, P.B. (2005) Soil-based Services in the Built Environment. Report prepared for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Silsoe: National Soil Resources Institute, Cranfield University. WSP Environmental (2006) The impact of subsoil compaction on soil functionality and landscape. Report to Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Bristol: WSP Environmental UK. Young, P.J., Pollard, S. and Crowcroft, P. (1997) Overview: Context, Calculating Risk and Using Consultants. In: Hester, R.E. and Harrison, R.M. Contaminated Land and its Reclamation. London: Thomas Telford.

Further Reading

Brantingham, P.L., Rondeau, M.B. and Brantingham, P. J. (1997) The Value of Environmental Criminology for the Design Professions of Architecture, Landscape Architecture and Planning. Draft paper, Orlando, FL: Second Annual CPTED Conference, ICA. Davis, E.L. (1998) Steam Injection for Soil and Aquifer Remediation. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, EPA/540/S-97/505. Defra (2007b) Securing a Healthy Natural Environment: An action plan for embedding an ecosystems approach. London: Defra Publications. Design Against Crime (2009) Design Against Crime. Available online at www. designagainstcrime.org (accessed 25 January 2009). English Nature (2002) Badgers and Development. Peterborough: English Nature. Environment Agency (2003) Working Better Together: A memorandum of understanding between Environment Agency, Local Government and Welsh Local Government Association. www.environment-agency.gov.uk (accessed 25 January 2010). Health and Safety Executive (2007) Construction (Design and Management) Regulations. Liverpool: HSE. Lindley, S.J., Handley, J.F., McEvoy, D., Peet, E. and Theuray, N. (2007) The role of spatial risk assessment in the context of planning for adaptation in UK urban areas. Built Environment, 33(1), 46–69. Manchester City Council (1995) Unitary Development Plan. Manchester: Manchester City Council. National Biodiversity Network (2010) About. NBN National Biodviersity Network: www.nbn.org.uk/About.aspx (accessed 15 January 2010). Natural England (2008) European Protected Species: Animals. Natural England: www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/EuropeanProtectedSpecies_tcm6-10703. pdf (accessed January 2010). ODPM (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister) (2004c) Planning and Pollution Control. Planning Policy Statement 23. London: ODPM. Office of Public Sector Information (1998) Crime and Disorder Act. UK: Office of Public Sector Information. Poyner, B. (1983) Design Against Crime: Beyond defensible space. London: Butterworth. RIBA (Royal Institute of British Architects) (2008) Eco-town: Living a greener future consultation. Response by RIBA to the government’s eco-town proposals. London: RIBA.

318

Further Reading

Rondeau, M.B., Brantingham, P.L. and Brantingham, P.J. (2005) The value of environmental criminology for the design professions of architecture, landscape architecture and planning. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 22(4), 294–304. Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council (2004) Unitary Development Plan. Trafford: Trafford Metropolitan Council.

Web Links

Accent Group – www.accentgroup.org Association of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Specialists – www.ags.org.uk Association of Local Government Archaeological Officers: UK – www.algao. org.uk British Market Research Association – www.bmra.org.uk British Standards Institution (BSI) – www.bsigroup.com Building Research Establishment – www.bre.co.uk Campaign to Protect Rural England – www.cpre.org.uk Central Office of Information – http://coi.gov.uk/ Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment – www.cabe.org.uk Communities and Local Government [Department for] – www.communities. gov.uk Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA) – www. ciria.org Council for British Archaeology – www.britarch.ac.uk Council of Mortgage Lenders – www.cml.org.uk Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) – www.defra. gov.uk English Heritage – www.english-heritage.org.uk Environment Agency – www.environment-agency.gov.uk Environmental Industries Commission – www.eic-uk.co.uk Google Maps – www.maps.google.co.uk Groundwork UK – groundwork.org.uk Health and Safety Executive – www.hse.gov.uk Health Protection Agency – www.hpa.org.uk Historic Scotland – www.historic-scotland.gov.uk HM Revenue and Customs – www.hmrc.gov.uk/index.htm Homes & Communities Agency – www.homesandcommunities.co.uk (includes the former English Partnerships and Housing Corporation) Infrastructure Planning Commission – infrastructure.independent.gov.uk King Sturge – www.kingsturge.co.uk Lambert Smith Hampton – www.lsh.co.uk Landmark Information Group – www.landmarkinfo.co.uk Land Restoration Trust – www.landrestorationtrust.org.uk Jason Lock Photography – www.jasonlock.co.uk London Brownfield Sites – www.londonbrownfieldsites.org Market Research Society – www.mrs.org.uk

320

Web Links

Multimap – www.multimap.com National Land Use Database (NLUD) – www.nlud.org.uk National Statistics – www.statistics.gov.uk Natural England – www.naturalengland.org.uk Office of National Statistics (ONS) – www.ons.gov.uk Old-maps.com – www.old-maps.co.uk Places Matter! – www.placesmatter.co.uk Qube Global Software – www.qubeglobal.com Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland – www. rcahms.gov.uk Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Wales – www. rcahmw.gov.uk Royal Institute of British Architects – www.architecture.com Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors – www.rics.org Royal Town Planning Institute – www.rtpi.org.uk Secured by Design – www.securedbydesign.com/index.aspx Sustainability at Work – www.sustainabilityatwork.org.uk Town and Country Planning Association – www.tcpa.org.uk United States Environmental Protection Agency – www.epa.gov UpMyStreet – www.upmystreet.com

Index

affordable homes, 40, 298 Agricultural Land Classification Scheme, 118 archaeology, 12, 25, 96, 137–41, 143–4, 145, 294 architect, 9, 12, 16, 18, 158–9, 281–2, 289, 290 architectural heritage, 137, 140–1, 143, 238 architecture, 27, 245, 289 Association of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Specialists (AGS), 101, 109 Best Practice Note (BPN) 27 Contamination and Dereliction Remediation Costs, 10, 174 biodiversity, 4, 25, 34–5, 37, 119, 120, 121–7, 131, 135, 203, 214, 244, 248, 296 black redstart, 122 boreholes, 103–4, 110 branding, 249 British Property Federation (BPF), 206 British Standards Institution (BSI), 102–3 British Urban Regeneration Association (BURA), 95 British Waterways (BW), 242, 244 brownfield sites/land (see also previously developed land), 3–4, 6, 13, 17–18, 21, 29–43, 59–60, 67, 69–71, 77–9, 82, 101–2, 112, 115, 119–22, 124, 135, 143–4, 146, 148–9, 151, 153, 158–60, 163, 173, 175, 177, 202–5, 214, 258, 273–4, 291, 296–7 Buglife, 121 Building Research Establishment (BRE), 274, 280, 290 Cadw, 137 Cambourne, Cambridgeshire, 204–5 Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE), 4, 203, 212–3 car parking, 5, 7, 156, 204, 257–8, 283, 289, 292 cash flow, 16, 55, 207, 224 Cheshire, 30, 81–100, 150, 156, 269 City of Davis, 147 civil engineering, 18, 102, 120, 158–9, 186, 224, 243 climate change, 11, 24, 25, 27, 47, 112, 118–21, 129–34, 135, 143, 207, 208, 209, 211, 238, 245, 284, 295

Coal Authority, 94 Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE), 204, 212, 235, 238–9, 241–2, 249, 272, 276, 278–9, 288–91, 298–9 Communities and Local Government, Department for (CLG), 4, 13–14, 23–7, 31, 35, 36, 39–41, 53, 59, 60, 115, 120, 132, 133, 134, 141–3, 203, 208–9, 210–12, 235–42, 272, 275–9, 281–8, 295 Community Infrastructure Levy, 26 compulsory purchase, 27, 183 conditional contract, 8, 50, 79 construction costs, 7, 15–16, 64, 220 Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA), 101–3, 145, 163 containment, 168–9 contaminants, 35, 77, 82, 94, 104–5, 108, 120, 158, 163, 166, 168, 170–2, 183, 200 contaminated land legislation, 166–7 Contaminated Land: applications in real environments (CL:AIRE), 162, 169, 170, 175 contaminated sites, 10, 103, 163, 168, 179, 194, 197, 220, 297 contracts, 9, 18, 79, 186, 294 Council for British Archaeology, 143–4 Crime and Disorder Act 1998, 253 crime preventative design, 252–7, 266–9 databases, 59, 127 debt finance, 223–4 demand, see market analysis density, see housing density Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), 13, 58, 99, 114, 115, 118–20, 165–7, 169, 203, 238, 240, 244–5 Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR), 27, 29, 30 design and build, 18 design codes, 275–8, 291 development appraisal, see financial appraisal development briefs, 279, 298 development finance, 16, 19, 64, 108, 215–29, 293, 298

322

Index

‘dig and dump’ 167–8, 175 discounted cash flow, 16

Growth Areas, 23, 39 Growth Points, 23, 39–40

economic blight, 36, 38, 149 economic change, 60, 258 ecosystem(s), 114, 118, 121, 122, 123, 127, 131, 134 eco-towns, 23–4, 39, 202, 209–14, 288, 291 Edinburgh, 233 energy, 11, 25–6, 132, 134, 135, 140, 160, 208–9, 228, 236, 238, 245–8, 281, 284, 286 engineer(s), 9, 12, 16, 82, 274, 282 engineering works, 77 English Heritage, 137–41, 142–3, 241–2 English Heritage’s Conservation Principles, 139 English Partnerships, 6, 9, 10, 12, 17, 19, 30, 32–8, 40, 42, 122, 148–9, 158, 173–4, 175–7, 203, 204, 205, 227, 272, 276, 280–1 Environment Act 1995, 166 Environment Agency (England and Wales), 10, 13, 82, 95, 96, 107–8, 149, 151, 157–8, 164, 166, 179 environmental consultant, 9, 12, 82, 101, 107–8, 200, 220, 222 environmental impact assessment (EIA), 115, 117, 123, 135 environmental impairment, 183, 185–6, 191, 195, 199–200 Environmental Industries Commission, 4, 203 Environmental Protection Act 1990, 166–7, 220 equity finance, 216, 223, 228 estate agents, 7, 12, 56–7 Eurodemo, 169–71

Habitats Directive, 164–5 Health and Safety Executive, 10 Health Protection Agency, 10 heavy metals, 77, 80, 104, 108, 165, 168, 172, 173 Historic Scotland, 137 historical study, 75, 79–96, 98, 99, 101, 105, 107 Home Builders Federation, 13 Homes and Communities Agency, 31, 38, 40, 41, 60, 160, 162, 203, 207, 227, 298, 300 house prices, 47–8, 52, 293 housing associations see registered social landlords (RSL) housing completions, 51–2, 66 housing density, 27–30, 50, 123, 130, 140, 156, 202, 234, 237, 246, 271, 275, 283, 285, 300 Hyndburn, 147–8

financial appraisal, 15–17, 37, 64, 76, 140, 175, 192–3, 201, 216–9, 227, 229, 296–7 financial viability, 218, 255, 281 flood alleviation, 4, 35, 37, 296 flood risk, 8, 25, 35, 37, 93, 133–4, 286 flood risk management, 133–4 Forestry Commission, 178, 297 forward sale, 225–6 gap funding, 219, 226–8 geodiversity action plans, 123, 125 geo-environmental engineering, 101 geographical information systems (GIS), 59 geotechnical, 77, 94, 98, 101, 103, 109, 111, 121 global warming, 286 Google Maps, 59, 94 green belt, 26, 274, 285 green paper, see planning greenfield sites/land, 4, 21, 29, 43, 67, 79, 82, 95, 114, 118, 164, 200–1, 204, 206, 213–4, 273, 297 Groundwork Trusts, 149–55, 156, 296

Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD), 60–1 Infrastructure Planning Commission, 26, 208–9 institutional lease, 217, 222 insurance(s), 17, 19, 78, 99, 129, 150, 186, 195, 217, 220, 254 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 129, 131 investment yields, 49, 61, 78, 217–8 Ipswich, 5, 46 joint venture, 51, 54, 59, 60, 66, 69, 71, 216, 220, 223, 224–5, 228, 229, 298 laboratory analysis, 103, 107–8 land banks, 45, 51–2, 56, 66–71, 78, 215 land buyers, 52 land condition record/statement, 38 Land Trust (formerly Land Restoration Trust), 11, 178, 297 Land Use Change Statistics (LUCS), 4 land use study, 9, 65, 78 land value, 50, 95, 200, 205, 210, 225, 227, 248, 297 land/site acquisition, 8, 15–16, 20, 46, 49, 52, 55–6, 65, 75–9, 98, 111 Landfill Directive and Landfill (England and Wales) Regulations 2002, 163–4 landfill gas, 144 landfill sites and disposal to landfill, 9, 12, 76, 77, 97, 120, 144, 157, 167–8, 175, 177, 179, 184 Landfill Tax, 168–9 Landmark Information Group, 59, 82, 94, 96–7 Lands Tribunal, 183–4

Index

landscape and landscaping, 12, 19, 25, 28, 31, 34, 113–4, 117–8, 121–2, 136, 138, 146, 150, 152–4, 159, 178, 235, 258, 272, 289 Leeds, 160 local development frameworks, 50, 123, 124, 212 local planning documents, 27, 61 local plans, see planning London, 23, 41–43, 49, 59–60, 68–71, 76, 122, 137, 160, 242–3 London Brownfield Sites Review, 41–3, 59 London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR), 221, 223 London, Mayor of, 295 Manchester, 77, 122, 130, 135, 150, 151–2, 155, 258–62, 269 Manchester Ship Canal, 82 map scales, 94 market analysis, assessment and demand, 6–7, 10, 39, 43, 45, 47, 57–65 market research, 56–9, 64, 65, 78, 300 Market Research Society, 58 marketing, 12, 19–20, 257, 294 masterplan, 204, 275, 277–9 measurement of buildings, 97 Medlock Valley, 151–2 mezzanine finance, 223–4 modern methods of construction, 280–1, 291 Multimap, 59, 94 National Brownfield Strategy (for England), 30–9, 41, 122, 158, 203, 205 National Land Use Database of previously developed land (NLUD), 3, 30–3, 37, 41–3, 61 National Policy Statements, 26, 208–9 nationally significant infrastructure projects (NISPs), 208–9 New Urbanism, 271–3, 291 non-profit-making and not-for-profit, 101, 162 Northern Ireland Planning Policy Statement 6, 138 Northwich, 81–93, 97, 100–4, 153–8 Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM), 23, 24, 35, 118, 122–7, 254–6, 276, 283 open space(s), 10, 11, 25, 27–8, 152, 155–8, 161, 174–5, 178, 233–4, 237–8, 249–50, 264, 271, 273, 284 options, 6, 9–12, 17–18, 36, 62, 109, 140, 168, 173, 179, 198, 210, 215, 225, 285, 297 Phoenix Park, Thurnscoe, 178 Planning Act 2008, 26, 208 planning applications, 7, 26, 124, 212 planning conditions, 13, 109, 126, 127

323

Planning Gain Supplement, 205–6 planning obligations, 40 planning permission(s), 45, 49–51, 57, 61, 65, 66–7, 78, 204, 205, 223, 224–5, 255, 258, 263, 267, 279, 298 planning policies, 23–44, 62–3, 123, 138, 144, 201, 214, 246 planning policy guidance notes, 24–6, 294 planning policy statements, 23–6, 294 planning process, 112, 115, 210, 276 PODD approach to development, 6, 12–19 pollution, 13, 26, 78, 82, 92, 95, 97, 115, 121, 150, 164–6, 191, 247, 267, 284, 286 polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), 77, 80, 104 population change, 60 previously developed land/sites (see also brownfield), 3–4, 13–14, 21, 30–3, 41, 43, 44, 59, 61, 75, 78, 95–6, 101, 118–24, 135, 137, 143, 144, 146, 163, 167, 173, 179, 203–4, 220, 222, 271, 273, 274, 294, 297 professional team, 9, 82, 145, 223 profit and profitability, 6, 15–16, 52, 55, 65, 71, 75, 95, 187, 190, 191, 207, 216, 218–9, 222–7, 300 project inception, 6–7, 9, 15, 19, 45–65, 79, 291, 297 project manager, 16, 77, 158, 159 property values, 22, 46–9, 60, 61, 147, 185, 195, 197, 198, 218, 248, 250, 276, 296 public art, 11 public realm, 7, 12, 17, 30, 132, 233–40, 250, 251, 271, 283, 299 quantity surveyor, 10, 12, 16, 220, 223 Regional Development Agencies (RDAs), 33, 37, 227, 239, 297 regional planning bodies, 33, 125, 295 Regional Spatial Strategies (RSSs), 25, 39, 123, 124, 212, 274, 295 registered social landlords (RSLs), 41, 53, 289 remediation (of sites), 10, 12, 13–14, 18, 35–37, 76, 102–4, 109, 149, 156–8, 159, 162–80, 183, 188–94, 197, 199–201, 203, 220, 227, 297 RICS Appraisal and Valuation Manual, 186 RICS Code of Measuring Practice, 97 RICS Foundation, 95, 188 River Weaver Navigation, 82, 84, 87, 90, 91, 100, 155 Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (RCEP), 134 Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland, 137 Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Wales, 137

324

Index

Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA), 210 Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS), 95, 184, 210 Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI), 126 Sale, Trafford, 262–6, 267 Salford, University of, 266 sampling strategies, 103–6 Secured by Design, 253–4, 257, 258, 269, 281 sensitivity analysis, 45, 64 Sheffield Hallam University, 266 Sheffield, Meadowhall, 69 site assessment, 8–9, 59, 75–111, 112 site investigations, intrusive, 9, 75–9, 101–11, 121, 153, 162, 188, 190, 199–200, 220 Smart Growth, 271–3, 291 social housing, 22, 39, 46, 67, 153, 156, 204, 228, 268, 272, 282, 298–9 social impact (of brownfield land), 160, 175 Soil Framework Directive, 165–6 Soil Strategy for England, 118 spreadsheet, 16, 59, 64 St Helens, 112–13 stigma, 184, 186–94, 200–1, 297, 299 Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment, 41 ‘sub-prime’ mortgages, 20 suitable for use, 149 sustainability and sustainability appraisal, 13, 23–4, 38, 58, 95, 99, 121, 123, 169, 199, 202, 210, 212, 214, 234, 237–8, 241, 246–248, 254–6, 267, 269, 273, 284–7, 291, 301 Sustainable Communities Plan 2003, 23 sustainable development, 24, 26, 29, 32–3, 34, 58, 112, 118, 122–3, 131–2, 140, 143, 159, 203, 208, 254, 257, 273, 285, 296, 299–300 sustainable development strategy, 118 sustainable urban drainage system (SUDS), 44, 204 Sydney Tar Ponds, Nova Scotia, 197–8 tenders, tendering, 18, 174, 294 Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment)(England and Wales) Regulations 1999, 115

Town and Country Planning Association (TCPA), 132, 202, 204, 206, 212 transport and transportation, 24, 26, 35, 44, 58, 62, 98, 117, 150, 159, 168, 177, 202, 204, 207–9, 211, 213, 214, 236, 242, 245, 248, 273–5, 280, 282, 283–4, 289, 292, 296, 300 tree preservation orders, 27 trial pit record, 106 trial pit/holes/trenches, 75, 76, 104–6, 110 Tyldesley Allotment Association, 154 Unitary Development Plan, Manchester, 258 United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 196, 273 University of Manchester, 135, 160, 176 urban design and urban designers, 6, 30, 158, 159, 235–6, 244–51, 252–4, 257, 267–9, 271–9, 290 urban green space, 114, 118, 121, 134, 135 urban regeneration, 27, 71, 95, 133, 138, 140, 146, 219, 226 Urban Task Force, 3, 4, 27–30, 202, 204, 253–4, 268 visual blight, 34, 35, 146–9, 296 W. J. Yarwood & Sons, 84, 153 walk-over survey, 96–100, 101, 105, 107 Washington, USA (smelter), 196–7 Waste Framework Directive, 163–4 Waste Management Licence, 149 Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994, 168 waterfront regeneration, 242–4 web links, 219–20 Wigan Leisure & Culture Trust, 154 windfall sites, 41, 44 Winsford Industrial Estate, 150–1, 153 Woodland Trust, 297 York, 137 Yorkshire, 98, 178 zero-carbon homes, 281–2

Land, Development and Design

Land, development and design

Caribbean Land and Development Revisited

Submarine Design and Development

VB6 UML Design and Development

Cuda Application Design and Development

Practical Manual of Land Development

Architecture and Utopia: Design and Capitalist Development

The Development of Design

Embedded Linux System Design and Development

Computer-aided pattern design and product development

Drug Metabolism in Drug Design and Development

Embedded Linux System Design and Development

Embedded Linux System Design and Development

Chirality in Drug Design and Development

Embedded Linux System Design and Development

Drug Metabolism in Drug Design and Development

Chirality in Drug Design and Development

Embedded Linux System Design and Development

Design and development of recommender dialogue systems

Embedded Linux system design and development

Mechatronics in Engineering Design and Product Development

Internationalization, Design and Global Development - IDGD 2011

Biopharmaceutical Drug Design and Development Second Edition

New Drug Development: Design, Methodology, and Analysis

Embedded Linux System Design and Development

Chirality in Drug Design and Development

Soviet Submarines: Design, Development, and Tactics

Land, Development and Design