1. Large Scale Development – the lessons of experience
Kevin McGeough, RESi 14, Manchester
February 2014

2. Defining Large Scale Development
Types of LSD
 Sustainable place making at scale
o Comprehensively planned, rather than organic
o Strategically led to deliver an agreed Vision
o Focus on creating a distinct Place, not just housing.
We can either condemn ourselves to haphazard urban sprawl – the surest way
to damage the countryside.
We can cram ever more people into existing settlements, concreting over
gardens and parks – and bear in mind we already build the smallest home in
Western Europe.
Or we can build places people want to live. Places which draw on the best of
British architecture and design, which have their own identity and
character.
Nick Clegg, deputy Prime Minister
Garden City
Sustainable Urban Extension
Eco-town
Millennium Community
Garden Suburb
Urban Village
Garden Village
Sustainable Urban
Neighborhood
Locally-planned large scale
development (LPLSD)
Sustainable Suburbia
New Town
Eco-region
Large scale sites

3. Examples of large scale development
City / sub-regional
Over 50,000 homes
Town
Over 10,000 homes
Village / District
Over 2,500 homes
Crawley, Stevenage, Runcorn, Skelmersdale, Welwyn
Garden City, Letchworth, Peterlee, Newton Aycliffe,
Edinburgh NT, Liverpool/Wirral Waters, Barking
Riverside (TG), Greenwich Peninsula, Hammarby
(Stockholm), Adamstown (Dublin),
Neighborhood
Over 500, homes
Places are in descending order of size
Port Marine 3500
New Hall 2600

4. A History of Large scale development in the UK
Timeline
1785
1850
1920
1946
1964
1965
1967
1992
1997
1999
2000
2000
2012

5. Summary Case Study,
Project Profile
• Location South of the Old town
• Context
Greenfield site next to old city
• Rationale New high quality environment designed to
stimulate economic growth, raise profile of city, retain
middle classes and attract absentee noblemen.
• Description Municipally sponsored suburb
• Place Promoter City of Edinburgh fathers (LA)
• Land ownership Land purchased by LA
• Delivery Method infrastructure by LA, plots sold to
individuals or developers to build to strict guidelines
• Development programme 5 phases over an 70 year
period (1770 – 1840) Ph 1 50yrs, Ph 2 30 yrs
Design Features
•
International design
competition
•
The high quality of the
architecture, set standards for
Scotland and beyond, and
exerted a major influence on
the development of urban
architecture and town
planning throughout Europe
Success factors
•
Largest planned city
development in the world
in 18th Century
•
Outstanding success in
bringing cultural and
commercial dynamism –
flexible over time
•
Unesco World Heritage sit
•
Highest quality of life in UK
•
“Town planning at its
boldest and most inspired”
Key lessons
•
LA investment in infrastructure was effectively a subsidy
to the middle classes however attracted the largest
concentration of middle classes in Scotland, and created
one of the most sustainable neighbourhoods in the world
•
Form and quality of development was controlled through
feudal conditions and helped raise confidence .
•
LA offered incentives of £20 to first builders
•
High ceilings and flexible layouts of buildings have allowed
them to be used flexibly for various functions over time.
10% green space
•
Edinburgh New Town
reference

6. Learning from Garden Cities
What is unique about Garden City Concept:
 How it is planned (physical form)
 Mode of Creation (approach to delivery)
Principles of Garden City (physical form)
 Marriage of the best of town an country
 Dispersal of population into Garden Cities to release
pressure on urban land values
 Small scale – yet big enough to offer range of facilities
– subsidised in each neighbourhood
 Zoning of homes and industry
 Circular in form – 6 neighbourhoods
 Dense – walking scale settlement
 Population of 32,000, 400 hectares
 Middle of countryside, outside the sphere of any
existing city

7. Learning from Garden Cities
Mode of Creation (approach to delivery)
•
“an ideal community that could appropriate for
itself land values it created by its own existence
and effort”
•
Leasehold Tenure
 Purchase of land at depressed agricultural values
through mortgage debentures @ 4 % interest –
raised from external investors.
 As City is constructed land values rise, – control of
land value vested in community
 Rental values will continue to rise regularly – after
30 years debt (mortgage) repaid.
 Future rental returns will then be invested in
perpetuity in the community to provide additional
social infrastructure and welfare – no local
taxation required.

8. Summary Case Study,
Project Profile
•
•
•
•
•
Location 20 miles north of London on A1
Context
Distinct new settlement for up to 40,000 people
Rationale 2nd garden city, building on Letchworth experience
Description To GC principles – town for up to 40,000 people.
Place Promoter Welwyn Garden City Ltd (WGCL), Ebenezer
Howard, later Welwyn Garden City Development Corporation
(WGCDC)
• Land ownership WGCL purchased at depressed agricultural values.
• Delivery Method Initially delivered in line with Garden City
principles – shares prospectus launched 1920 to raise £250k at
max 7% return. Later phases WGCDC with Treasury loans.
• Development programme 2 phases of growth – as private sector
led Garden City (1920-39) as a designated New Town (1946–66)
once target population
Design Features achieved – stoppedpassed to CNT.
•
Built to garden city principles
incorporating new ideas such as
routes for cars – along broad treelined boulevards, lined with
housing.
•
Central Mall (Parkway) 1 mile long
as orientating element.
•
Town centre and housing built on
neo-Georgian / Arts and Crafts style.
•
Separation of housing and
employment uses.
reference
Welwyn Garden City

9. Summary Case Study,
Welwyn Garden City
•
Success factors
WGC offers a very high quality of life, including access to an
excellent range of high order local facilities and services.
Welwyn Stores, taken over by John Lewis (1984), contribute
to a higher level offer than other towns of similar size.
•
A good range of medium and higher level job opportunities
have been maintained within the town, attracted by high
quality and variety of housing available
•
Values in WGC are higher than local comparators, in part due
to attractiveness of environment delivered and maintained
•
WGC continues to evolve successfully – new developments
such as Sainsbury’s and Howard centre have fitted into the
framework whilst offering a contemporary building solution
Key lessons
•
•
Keeping a single architect over-seeing development for 40
years has resulted in exceptional quality and continuity.
•
reference
Much of the social value envisaged for the city was not
delivered due to a perceived incompatibility of community
values and investment expectations - early investment
during the war and 30’s recession was difficult to secure.
WGC is the only new town of comparable scale that has
achieved a high quality of life and good variety of services –
this could in part be due to location or its physical
appearance based on traditional places rather than car
orientated development.

10. Learning from the New Towns
•The New Towns programme grew directly out
of the Garden City movement, with 32 created
in the UK from 1946.
• The 1946 New Towns Act gave Government
powers to designate areas of land for new town
development.
• Government appointed public “Development
Corporations” for each town, supplied most of
the necessary finance and closely scrutinised
their work and spending decisions.
• Development Corporations had powers to
acquire, own, manage and dispose of land and
property, undertake building operation, provide
public utilities and generally do anything
necessary to develop the New Town.
• The Corporations had exceptionally
favourable arrangements for land purchase at
existing (or close to existing) use values.
Background

11. Estimated housing construction rates in the new towns over the decades from 1951 to
2011 showing period of intense growth and an increasing focus on the south
The darker green the cells, the greater the number of homes constructed in that decade.
Orange cells indicate low or stagnant growth
Darker red cells, indicates a reduction in housing growth, reflecting homes being demolished
to 1961
to 1971
to 1981
to 1991
to 2001
to 2011
WGC
4833
2414
357
0
866
1225
Peterlee
3883
4190
536
-1296
3113
0
Aycliffe
3780
4345
893
-667
309
198
Hatfield
3567
2345
-357
1481
385
800
Bracknell
4517
6414
3643
1422
-465
4948
Harlow
15967
8310
893
-1259
1923
560
Hemel H
10667
5862
3750
-481
1846
1400
Stevenage
11433
8724
2750
741
1346
1800
Crawley
14667
4759
2929
4148
4825
2742
Basildon
10000
9655
6071
21111
3462
3600
Corby
6767
5000
179
-1430
715
4800
Skelmersdale
5966
4750
444
-1077
0
Runcorn
2224
10339
1667
-1692
-1000
Washington
2586
9821
1926
-2000
448
Redditch
2690
8536
5704
154
2000
Telford
9286
5926
3654
2200
MK
17607
18111
12615
13000
Peterborough
12500
5889
6962
11600
Warrington
5000
6296
8077
6000
Northampton
8214
9630
2308
8000
 Periods of high growth relating to the early years of new town designation building toward target growth
 Most new towns follow rapid growth by a decade of stagnation followed by a decade of modest contraction – often the result of
poorly constructed homes being demolished within 30-40yrs
 Continued growth through from 1980 – 2010 in MK3 NT’s and expanded towns only – with the exception of Basildon!

12. Population growth and quality of retail offer:
smaller new towns with generally limited offer/performance;
a number of medium size towns that are stagnant or met target growth with a relatively indifferent or poor offer; larger towns continuing to grow relatively
quickly with a reasonable town centre offer. Outliers include WGC (higher than expected offer), Stevenage, Corby, Basildon, Runcorn and Skelmersdale (falling
well below expectations) which may warrant further analysis

13. Learning from the New Towns
Are New towns Successful?
Lessons
– in comparison to what?
•By 1991 growth in New Towns (NTs) amounted to homes for 1.4 million people.
•By 2011, almost 500, 000 homes were delivered in English NTs.
•NTs delivered up to 2,000 new homes per annum per town – initially up to 90% of this was
public housing – post 1991, primarily private sector homes – in limited number of growing NTs.
•Some NTs continue to be economic and cultural drivers in their sub-region, whilst others are
struggling to retain jobs. Expanded, and 3rd generation NTs have generally been most successful.
•Larger NTs in strategic locations appear to be a recipe for success. Smaller NTs, often
constructed to serve short term need or a specific employment use have been less successful.
•Public appropriation of land values was essential, as were loans from treasury at reasonable
rates. Most NTs have repaid loans and generate positive receipts after 30-50 year period.
•Many early NTs illustrated slight concern for peoples preferences – paternalism of Lord Reith
•New towns were often experiments in how people should live – with very variable success.
•Some NTs have been inflexible in their ability to adapt to change – over dependence on single
employer, or dominance of single land owner in town centres.
•Over-provision of infrastructure represents wasted investment and has helped create a
negative stigma for many NTs ( roundabouts, flyovers and dual carriageways to nowhere?)
•Too much experimentation in early years resulted in abortive investment

14. Learning from our legacy,
Project Profile
• Location 30 ha site - SE corner of Greenwich Peninsula
• Context
Regeneration of gasworks site
• Rationale A Millennium community to be a “tangible living model of
best practice and theory in sustainable development”
• Description 30 ha site, to accommodate a new ecology park, 3000
homes, school, health facilities and a mixed use centre
• Place Promoter EP (HCA), now GLA
• Land ownership EP (HCA), now GLA
• Delivery Method Infrastructure by EP, developer / design competition
won by Countryside with Ralph Erskine (arch) – joint venture.
• Development programme Start on site - 2000, 1200 homes to date,
ecology park, school, health centre and emerging village centre
Design Features
• Concept of an 21st Century Urban Village, 3000 homes divided
into 4 sub neighbourhoods ,each including distinct urban blocks
built around courtyards and green spaces (Maida Vale
principles)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
A master plan that works for people – community hubs
A revolution in the design of new homes (space and light)
A model for environmental sustainable development
A new era in UK house building
Mixed-tenure development (min 20% affordable)
Vibrant community – mixed uses
Transferable lessons to UK house building
reference
GMV

15. Learning from our legacy,
GMV

Success factors
Excellent school and health facilities provided at the
beginning of construction, helped to tie development into
surrounding local community and give a village focus.

Excellent quality of development and public realm achieved
including 2 “Building for life” Gold awards

Village centre initially slow, now being established



25% of homes social tenure, pepper potted throughout
All homes designed to a minimum Ecohomes Excellent std
Pedestrian friendly streets are attractive, however lack
vibrancy – being replaced in later phases.
Quality of architecture creates identity which has value.

Key lessons
reference
 Public / private partnerships are vital, however deal with one
cautious developer has resulted in slow delivery
 Excellent transport links from outset has helped establish
sustainable transport choices
 Good design is critical in making sustainable communities work –
GMV has a distinct identity which attracts investment
 Need to be ambitious from the outset but flexible – standards
set were good, however outdated within a few years
 Community infrastructure should go in at early stages
 Need to learn from lessons in each phase of development – later
phases are adopting new design principles
 A variety of developers and architects improve quality and
speed

16. Learning from our legacy,
Project Profile
• Location SW edge of Northampton
• Context
Latest NT neighbourhood 44ha
• Rationale High quality neighbourhood, part of wider
SW Northampton district extension, part of
Sustainable Urban extension exemplar programme
(DCLG)
• Description 1,400 homes, mixed use village centre,
new primary school, country park, community centre
• Place Promoter NDC with HCA and Prince’s Foundation
• Land ownership HCA
• Delivery Method Master plan / design code formulated
by HCA and NDC. HCA orchestration .
• Development programme 12 year programme
Design Features
•
Master plan produced through a collaborative design
exercise with Princes Foundation
•
A design code was produced to co-ordinate design
quality over time
•
8 defined phases create distinct character areas and
include smaller developer opportunities.
•
Development is made up of urban blocks with
continuous terraces and internal parking courts
•
Sustainable urban drainage system is integral to
development and offsets flooding threat.
reference
Upton,Northampton

17. Learning from our legacy,
Upton, Northampton
Success factors
 Consistently delivers a very high quality of development
over the period, including a wide range of types.
 EBD process enabled number of homes to increase by 25%.
 Values and delivery maintained through recession period.
 Design code allows each phase of development to achieve
planning approval in as little as 6 weeks.
 Mixed use in neighbourhood has been difficult to deliver.
 A sustainable urban drainage system has allowed the
scheme to be constructed in a high flood risk area.
Key lessons
The public realm and infrastructure, including a SUDS system
are delivered in advance by HCA to facilitate serviced plots –
receipts attained make scheme cost neutral
In order to deliver the high quality environment over a 10 year
period by a number of diverse developers, a set of Design Codes
have been developed by the consultants team and endorsed as
Supplementary Planning Development by the local authority –
managed a Working Group, which involves many of the
members of the original Enquiry by Design process, including
HCA and LA who work collaboratively to deliver a consistently
high quality of development through a speedier planning
process.
Design code must be flexible and respond to lessons e.g.
parking courts are under-utilised and unattractive.
Mixed use must go in the most commercially viable location.
reference

18. Learning from our legacy,
Project Profile
• Location 6 miles SE of Leeds
• Context
Brownfield regen of coal mining village
• Rationale Mill Comm exemplar to demonstrate good
design and environmental stds in a low value location
• Description Up to 600 homes in 4 quadrants + 25k m2
of commercial space and job opportunities
• Place Promoter English Partnerships (HCA) and DCLG
• Land ownership EP inherited from National Coal board
• Delivery Method Advance infrastructure and land
reclamation by EP. Serviced parcels released to
multiple developers in accordance with design code
• Development programme On-site 2005, 3 phases
complete – reminder of site released to DPP 2012
Design Features
• International design competition 1998 – too
ambitious and not supported by local community
• EP took more hands on role in 2004 – collaborative
sessions with developers, LA and cabe to develop a
design code, adopted by Leeds CC
• Largest Home zone in Uk
• £60k house competition
• Urban summit house site
reference
Allerton Bywater

19. Learning from our legacy
Allerton Bywater
Success factors
•
First B4Life winning scheme in Yorkshire
•
Despite low value location, developers have
continued to deliver through recession
•
HCA continues to receive overage indicating values
have upheld better than locality
•
Has helped rebuild local community and stimulate
the local economy
Key lessons
•
•
Exercise a degree of commercial realism at outset
•
Upfront time in agreeing design code saves time later
•
Need upfront investment to do things that private sector
would not do - Developers want low risk opportunities –
public sector provide physical and community infrastructure.
•
reference
AB, illustrates how the construction of an attractive (but
realistically priced) place in a previously declining place, can
draw people back and reverse decline.
There is significant value in oven ready sites which already
have local authority and community support

20. Informing the future of LSD

21. Informing the future
Garden
Cities?
Investment in
Rented sector
LIF £474m +
£1 bn
Unlocking
Development
GBB £570m
Supporting ownership,
Unlocking demand
DCLG Housing Strategy 2013
Incentives and
Communities
RGF
£2.6bn
Public
Sector Land

22. CASE STUDIES
SUMMARY ANALYSIS
Project
Procurement Approach
Infrastructure
provision
Proposed
no. of
homes
Year
started
Number
achieved
to date
Construc
tion
No. /
rate PA
Quality control &
achieved
Greenwich MV
Peninsula divided into 5
neighbourhoods including
GMV. Procured through
developer / architect
competition - Countryside
with Ralph Erskine.
Remediation and site
infrastructure by EP
(HCA) for peninsula
£170m (10k dwgs).
Value 2012 -117m
receipt forecasts -440m
3000
2000
1200
100
Design guidance and
design competitions
2 x BFL
Upton,
Northampton
Site owned by EP (HCA),
divided into 8 serviced
parcels. Developments sold
on building license
EP (HCA) investment of
£22.4m in infrastructure
to include suds system,
streets, transport.
Receipts to date £29.6m
1400
Allerton
Bywater, Leeds
Initial competition –
abandoned. Hand-on
facilitation role by EP (HCA) serviced sites
EP (HCA) investment of
£24m in facilitation,
infrastructure and
decontamination.
600
Lawley,
Telford
Site sold to a consortia of
Barratt / Persimmon /TW
development agreement£99m receipt in return for
3300 homes in 11 yrs
Facilitation costs £4.75m
(HCA). Infrastructure by
private sector ptnrs
£23.8m to date including
landscape, roads, S106
3300
Milton Keynes
Development Corporation
67-92, funded through loans
from Treasury. CNT/EP from
92. Land appropriated at
present use value.
67-92 £902m –
investment through
MKDC, 92-06 £168m –
CNT/EP. Receipts 92-06
£651.4m
110000
New Hall,
Harlow
Site owned and facilitated by
landowner. Sites sold at
fixed price - developer
competition
Public realm and
infrastructure linked to
each land parcel of 70 –
100 dwellings
2500
Crown street,
Glasgow
Each parcel sold at fixed
price through competition –
assessed on quality of
response.
Infrastructure - £64m by
public sector to create
manageable
development parcels
2000
(10000 for
peninsula)
3.3%pa
2004
960
120
8%pa
2006
350
50
8.5%pa
2006
505
80
2.5%pa
1967
70000
1550
1.75pa
2000
540
45
1.8%pa
19922004
2000
180
9%pa
EBD. Master plan and
Design code overseen
by working group - 1 x
BFL achieved
Design code
developed with LCC overseen by HCA
1 x BFL+ home zone
EBD. Master plan and
Design code managed
by developer &
overseen by TWDC
Master planned and
overseen by MKDC.
Mk centre listed. High
quality of life index for
town.
Design code overseen
by Landowner
3 x BFL+
Detailed master plan
and strict
development
guidelines

23. CASE STUDIES
Project
SUMMARY ANALYSIS
Procurement approach
Infrastructure
provision
Proposed
no. of
homes
Year
started
Number
achieved
to date
Construct
ion –
No. /rate
pa
Quality control
&
achieved
2000
8500
705
Detailed master
plan and design
guidance for
each plot. 21
architectural
practices on-site
European
comparators
Hammarby,
Sweden
Project managed by
Stockholm `city council.
Serviced plots / blocks
provided to 41 separate
developers through
competition or negotiation.
E500m Infrastructure
investment provided
by SCC to include
water / energy /
waste plant and tram
& decontamination.
11000
Vauban,
Germany
Priority in plot disposal was
given to co-operatives of
10-20 families (30 co-ops)
remaining sites went to
small private sector
developers
City purchased 41ha
military site.
Facilitation and
infrastructure by city
including new tram.
2000
Adamstown,
Ireland
Designated a Strategic
Development Zone. Single
landowner – consortia of 3
private ptnrs. Values come
from long-term site
appreciation?
E100m requirement.
Each of 11 phases of
dev is statutorily
linked to a quantity of
infrastructure,
services and facilities
10000
Historic
comparators
Edinburgh NT
Serviced plots or streets
provided by City – sold to
private developers /
individuals
Infrastructure
provided by city
fathers to encourage
economic growth
3000*
Site procured and
developed by philanthropist
to support his business
efficiency.
Built adjacent to river
and canal for
transport and energy.
Sustainable principle
820
Saltaire
6%pa
19932006
2000
2003
1200
155
7.5%pa
135
1.4%pa
17701820
complete
60
2%pa
18511876
complete
35
4%pa
Car free
development
built to the
highest env stds
Design code and
master plan
overseen by
Dublin CC
International
design
competition.
Unesco WHS
Single architect
for entire
development
Unesco WHS

24. Financing Large Scale Development
1.
Creating new places requires investment in infrastructure and facilities, including their long-term maintenance
Where does the money come from? Grants (scarce) ? Value uplift? Investment ( needs attractive return)
Town or city scale development will take a 30 – 50 year
investment, neighbourhoods up to 20 years – need for a Patient
Investor!
Those with a long-term interests in a place may include, local
authorities, enlightened landowners, national government, pension
companies, registered providers, and the people who live there.
Mainstream House builders are unlikely to deliver more than 250
homes pa in a single site. To get rates of delivery above 250
dwellings pa we need to attract a wider range of
Infrastructure can be biggest barrier – need to question when it is
needed and if it is needed at all. Easy and quick spend can be a
barrier.
Very large scale development is only possible where the land
value captured stays in the local place and land values are kept at
agricultural or hope values rather than development values.
Issue 1
Issue 2
Issue 3
Issue 4

25. 2.
Delivery options and Land ownership
Multiple or fragments ownerships are highly likely to frustrate and distort the delivery of joined up sustainable
development
 Private sector only - will only work at
neighbourhood / village scale.
 Private sector led – public support public investment can reduce private
sector risk.
 Public sector orchestration - allows more
private sector partners to contribute
(significant value in oven ready with LA
and community support – quality and
speed is achieved best through this model)
 Most successful examples from Europe are
led and financed through enlightened City
Councils.
Issue 1
Issue 2
Issue 3
Issue 2

26. Location and Connections
3.
Having development in the right place with connections to surrounding places is the foundation of
sustainable development

LSD must have a purpose (Raison d’etre), There
must be demand, it must serve local need, with
good access to, or opportunities for
employment, leisure, retail and employment

LSD should have an appropriate degree of selfcontainment.

LSD should be accessible to other places and
serve a specific function in their area.

Distinct new places however should not be too
close – may be difficult for new place to compete

New LSDs must address Environmental concerns
and local ambitions

Connections from outset are critical
Issue 1
Issue 2
GMV
Issue 3
Issue 4

27. Quality and Design‘
4.
In a nutshell, because we don’t build beautifully, people don’t let us build much. And because we don’t build
much, we can’t afford to build beautifully” Nick Boles
LSD examples are amongst the best and worst places in UK
- learn from both positive and negative examples
New places should identify opportunities for innovation –
look to the future (40-50years) to ensure that the whole
place is delivered in accordance with local and national
ambitions - always ensure financial viability is developed
collaboratively - the compatibility of planning and delivery
Design Codes can coordinate quality by number of
developers and consultants over time, brings consistency
and clarity over delivery period – LSD will not suit all
developers – only the best!
A variety of developers and consultants can enhance
vibrancy and interest
Respond to local need – not corporate / political ambitions
Build on what we know works – don’t be too experimental
Quality has to be maintained
The early phases of development are critical
Don’t re-invent the wheel
Issue 1
Issue 2
Issue 3
Issue 4

28. Executive Summary
 The UK has led world-class innovations in large scale place-making for centuries, resulting in
some of the most economically successful and attractive places to live and work and also some
of the worst - It is critical that we learn from our legacy in order to inform future delivery of a
new generation of large scale places, including potential new towns or garden cities.
 Delivering a new neighbourhood over 15 years or a new town over a 50 year period, requires
long-term commitment and strong leadership which transcends political or spending review
periods, party and personal interests, trends, fashions and initiatives.
 In a favourable market and location, developers will deliver up to 250 homes per annum. For
larger projects or where we want an increased rate of delivery, we need to attract a variety of
developers and investors ideally focused on different markets or uses.
 The best results come from a partnerships approach between the public and private sectors –
the greater the risk borne by the public sector, the greater the speed, quality and innovation
that can be achieved by the private sector.
 The greater the expectation of land values, the more difficult it will be to deliver LSD. In order
to deliver infrastructure at the largest of scales, land value will need to be as close to
agricultural values as possible.
 A Patient Investor in LSD will be rewarded provided they can wait for a 30-50 years.
 Investment in a high quality of place is essential to achieving consensus for development and
ensuring a return in long-term investment is achieved and maintained.