黑洞社区

A survey of UK housing occupiers by Savills Research showed living in a good neighbourhood is the single most important feature of a home for most people. But what makes a good neighbourhood? This is examined in a report by Savills published this month.

The report shows the value generated by creating good neighbourhoods is substantial and could make a significant difference to schemes but doesn't always fit well with housebuilders' shorter-term business models. Key issues are raised about how sustainable urbanism can be funded, especially on large regeneration sites.

鈥淪ustainable urbanism鈥� (SU) is the term coined by the report to describe the features that, taken together, create more environmentally, socially and economically viable places. Characteristics include:

• Walkable neighbourhoods
• Pedestrian and cycle friendly road layouts
• Connectivity to adjacent neighbourhoods
• A fine grain mix of property uses
• 黑洞社区s to meet daily shopping needs
• Affordable accommodation for businesses
• 黑洞社区s designed for the street and place rather than the site on which they stand
• Variety of green and open spaces
• Design coherence of the built form
• Detailed attention to the finish of public realm
• Attention to the finish of public areas
• Higher than average numbers of dwellings per hectare for their location
• Mix of residential tenure types
• Long-term management entities to take care of all this

The research looked at three completed schemes (Poundbury in Dorchester, Crown Street in Glasgow, and Fairford Leys in Aylesbury), where most, but not all, SU criteria were met. The SU schemes were compared with standard residential development and old urbanism (fully evolved, Victorian streets) on similar size sites in similar positions in the same location. The main finding was that, in all case studies, the value of the real estate on each hectare of built land was greater for the SU exemplars than for the more conventional developments (see table 1). It also established that there are no automatic formulae in terms of density, size or mix of uses and dwellings to create SU; it is site specific.

At a time when developers are faced with a raft of new regulation and costs, restricted land supply and pressure to develop in growth areas where competition between sites is fierce, SU presents an opportunity for landowners and developers to add value. The big question is: will the costs of SU outweigh the added value? We spoke to a number of developers, some of whom said build costs were no higher for their SU schemes. Our research showed build costs would have to be between 46% and 120% higher before rendering SU schemes less viable than standard development (see table 2).

One difference between SU and standard approaches is the upfront costs seen in the time and effort during land assembly, pre-planning, design, masterplanning, consultation and planning stages. This does not suit housebuilders who work to short time scales of delivery. It is likely therefore that on larger, more complex brownfield sites, their involvement may be limited to the late stages of development, if at all. Already it is commercial developers who are most active on the bigger sites. Their longer-term business model and experience gives them an advantage but even this may not be enough for the biggest sites.

For SU to work in the commercial world, two things are needed: first, mechanisms for participating in long-term value uplift and, second, long term funding/investment vehicles to accommodate the range of activity involved in delivering great neighbourhoods on big regeneration sites. The need for deep pockets and patient equity suggests we need to create new, modern, landed estates on these sites.

Historically, developers and landowners have used the leasehold system, its ground rents, reversions and long-term freehold values as a mechanism for long-term participation. The Leasehold Reform Act of 1992 effectively removed this as a reliable, long-term method of land holding as it gave occupiers the right to buy out the freehold.

A new mechanism needs to be found. Savills has explored the opportunities for shared ownership or shared equity in homes to do this. These models have advantages for landowner and occupier, including the fact that they go some way to addressing the affordability issue by subsidising those who cannot afford to buy outright. This mechanism would solve a number of barriers faced by land promoters. By sharing equity, a promoter of SU would be able to share in future capital uplift with the owner occupier.

SU would directly address the concerns of policy makers at a variety of levels, from social cohesion to environmental matters and, not least, housing delivery. The government should be ready with primary legislation if needed to ensure delivery is not only timely but also provides people with the kind of neighbourhoods we love.