The Role of the UK Development Industry in Brownfield Regeneration Research funded by EPSRC as part of the SUBR:IM Programme (Sustainable Urban Brownfield Regeneration: Integrated Management) (Grant No: GR/S148809/01). Stage 2 Report Volume 1 (of 3): Literature Review, National Developer Interviews, Planning Permission Analysis and NLUD Analysis September 2005 Authors: Dr Tim Dixon, Director of Research Yasmin Pocock, Research Officer Mike Waters, Research Assistant Funded by: No part of this report may be quoted without the permission of the lead author. With support from The RICS Research Foundation Published September 2005 by the College of Estate Management, Whiteknights, Reading, RG6 6AW No responsibility for any loss occasioned to any person acting or refraining from action as a result of any material included in this publication can be accepted by the authors or the publishers. ISBN 1-904388-47-7 © College of Estate Management 2005 (except NLUD data which is Crown Copyright and reproduced with permission) The role of the UK development industry in brownfield regeneration: Stage 2, Volume 1 Executive Summary Overview This part of the report (which is Volume 1 of a three-volume, Stage 2 report) presents the literature review and conceptual framework for the research. The report also examines the results from the national UK developer interviews (carried out in 2004-2005); National Land Use Database (NLUD) analysis (1998-2003); and residential planning permission analysis for Salford/Manchester and Barking & Dagenham (2000-2004) using Estates Gazette Interactive (EGi) data and published information. Why is the research important? Government policy currently places a strong emphasis on the reuse of brownfield land as part of the sustainable development agenda. Stage 1 of this research highlighted the fact that the UK developer industry was coming to terms with brownfield development, although legislative tensions (at a national and EU level) could pose problems for the future. Stage 2 of the research investigates developer attitudes in more detail towards the barriers to brownfield redevelopment, and towards sustainability in brownfield development. The research also examines NLUD data to determine the key trends emerging nationally and sub- regionally (in Thames Gateway and Greater Manchester) as a prelude to more detailed case study work in these two areas (see Volume 2). Finally, using residential planning permission data, the research in the current volume also examines some of the key characteristics of the development industry in Thames Gateway and Greater Manchester, and at a local authority level in Salford/Manchester and Barking & Dagenham. 1 The role of the UK development industry in brownfield regeneration: Stage 2, Volume 1 Main findings from analysis (Volume 1) National developer interviews Delivering more homes. There is a readiness to support the recommendations from the Barker Review in relation to innovation in the construction process, the streamlining of planning procedures, and delivering homes ‘in tune’ with market preference. Drivers and barriers. The economic and financial framework is a powerful driver for the development of contaminated brownfield land. Developers are frequently dissuaded from developing on contaminated brownfield sites when the degree of uncertainty exceeds what is deemed viable and ‘risk-tolerable’. This can include complying with regulators and technical difficulties. The recent EU Landfill Directive is an additional risk. Sustainability. Although the development industry is playing an influential role in the ‘sustainability’ agenda, there is a degree of scepticism over an agreed, industry-wide definition, and this may hinder its implementation. Developers seem to be adopting a proactive approach to defining sustainability on their own terms. Simplifying and integrating policy. For developers the future of brownfield regeneration seems to rest heavily upon the simplification of government policy, such as the Building Regulations, as well as developers responding to bespoke brownfield legislation, namely the EU Landfill Directive and the Waste Acceptance Criteria. NLUD analysis (1998-2003) Total supply. In 2003 there were some 65,750 hectares of Previously Developed Land (PDL) in England that was available for development. Of this, almost one-third of the total stock is identified as ‘vacant’. Hardcore sites. About one-third of PDL in England is not yet allocated for any specific use. Factors such as poor site conditions, site locations in deprived areas, and market perceptions, may contribute to this. Sub-regional PDL and dereliction. In 2003, there were some 3,600 hectares of PDL stock in Thames Gateway (TG), and 2,625 hectares in Greater Manchester (GM). A significantly higher amount of PDL in GM is derelict/vacant (73%), compared with TG (41%). This is mainly in private ownership, and dereliction is characterised by larger sites in TG (4.8ha) than GM (3.0ha). Sub-regional housing allocation. The current stock of brownfield land in the case study areas (as at 2003) is suitable to provide an additional 81,346 homes in TG, over half coming from vacant and derelict PDL, and an additional 39,002 homes in GM, over two-thirds coming from vacant and derelict PDL. Residential planning permission analysis (2000-2004) Top 100 housebuilders. This group has been important in residential development in both Salford/Manchester (SM) and Barking & Dagenham (BD) from 2000-2004. Key players in SM have included Gleeson, Countryside Properties, George Wimpey and Bellway Homes, and, more recently, Urban Splash; and in BD, Bellway, Persimmon, Higgins Homes and Abbey Developments. Smaller housebuilders. This group (including Antler and Clarke Lyon) has been especially important in SM and this may be partly due to the nature and size of available land holdings. Other developers. Locally-based companies have been important players in both areas (for example Ician Development and Ask Properties in Manchester, and Urban Catalyst in Barking and Dagenham), and housing associations have played a more important role in BD than SM. The successful public-private ventures seen in BD may also be gaining in popularity in SM. Size of permissions. For the period 2000-2004 the average size of permission was larger in SM (85 units) than in BD (61 units). 2 The role of the UK development industry in brownfield regeneration: Stage 2, Volume 1 Conceptual framework Reviewing the literature in Stage 1 enabled us to provide an overview of a variety of approaches to ‘conceptualising’ the brownfield regeneration process. It is valuable to structure the research being formulated as a ‘conceptual framework’ that describes in narrative, or visual format, the key factors, constructs and variables under study. It is also the aim of the research to test the validity of the relationships outlined. Figure 1: Conceptual framework (adapted from POST, 1998, and Shephard and Dixon, 2004) Market Impacts (‘Economic’) Policy Push Developers Opportunity (Responses and Pull Cultures) Stakeholder Technology Engagement Adoption (‘Social’) (‘Environmental’) Therefore, as shown in Figure 1, the three components of our research in Stage 2 focus on three themes, or facets, of sustainable development (or sustainability): 1 Market impacts (the ‘economic’ pillar) For example: • How is risk defined, assessed and communicated in the development process? • How is the economic viability of a scheme measured? • What is the nature of existing market dysfunction or failure in the immediate development locality and how will the development benefit the area? • What causes such dysfunction/failure in brownfield areas? • Is stigma an issue and how can it be measured? 3 The role of the UK development industry in brownfield regeneration: Stage 2, Volume 1 2 Stakeholder engagement (the ‘social’ pillar) For example: • How do developers engage with other stakeholders (including national, local and regional government, agencies, remediation consultants, the public) during the brownfield regeneration process? • What are the drivers, tensions, or frictions which may arise during the brownfield development process? • What are the developers’ responses and cultures to brownfield regeneration1? 3 Technology adoption (the ‘environmental pillar’) For example: • What determines the type of remediation technology used? • How does the development industry view new, innovative clean-up technologies? • What is the perception of other stakeholders towards such technologies? • What determines technology ‘lock-in’ and adoption? • What is the international experience in remediation? It should be emphasised that our approach is to analyse the perceptions, attitudes and practice of the development industry in relation to sustainable development on brownfield sites. Therefore the project is not measuring sustainable development as such; rather it is examining to what extent developers are engaging with the sustainable development agenda, and what that agenda comprises for them. We are also interested in the ‘tensions’ that can arise between these three facets of sustainability in the presence of ‘push’ factors (for example policy and contamination issues) and ‘pull’ factors (for example, profitability issues)2. Finally in our framework, we do not make any assumptions about the inter- relationships between the ‘pillars’. Instead we seek to explore how developers and other stakeholders are engaging with the three components of sustainable development. 1 We are therefore