Who Pays the Piper Calls the Tune

In his piece on Policy Exchange’s proposals for a new?‘School of Place’, BD magazine’s Ben Flatman suggested that it might more usefully be aimed at housebuilders/developers rather than architects...but perhaps this is a bit unfair. Ben rightly points out that there are plenty of architect-designed housing developments with top quality landscaping and a strong sense of place, so there can’t be a skills shortage. But each of those developments also had a client who saw the value of placemaking, and hired the right team to deliver it. So, it is clear that not all developers are the same.

The big problem is that for the small group of PLC housebuilders who deliver the bulk of the UK's new housing, enhanced landscaping is a simple cost, which hurts their bottom line. Their ‘freehold + adoption’ business-model means they are not involved in a place long enough to benefit in any long-term value-uplift that good placemaking might generate. One solution to this is the master-developer model, where the developer retains ownership of a new neighbourhood through a freehold/leasehold model, using longer-term ‘patient’ capital to achieve higher total returns but spread over a longer period - 20 years or more. This is why the ‘great estates’ of Georgian London, Bath and Edinburgh are great.

But that’s all a bit complicated! Is there anything that could be done within the current matrix of interests – architects, planners, developers? Well, one party is usually missed off this list: the original landowner. I touched on this in my recent article ‘The Rules of UK Housebuilding’, mentioning the crucial role that ‘legacy-awareness’ could play in delivering better places. The article prompted some interesting comments, but in this context it is worth highlighting the exchange I had with Ian Fox of FW Properties, who noted:

‘Matt, some good points but you have failed to mention the landowner who invariably does remain in the vicinity (if they are the farmer) after the developer has gone. Why then do they allow themselves to have no control over the community that replaces the open fields that their family has farmed for generations and instead take the highest land price and leave the outcome to the housebuilder? Have promotors got something to do with this?’

I replied:

‘Good point, Iain; thanks. 'Legacy-awareness' could apply to landowners as much as developers. I recall that the design and build-quality of New Hall in Harlow was widely credited to the vision of the original landowners, the Moen brothers, whose family had farmed the land for many generations and wanted to do it justice. On a more flippant note I have often said that I think the NPPF should insist that the main spine-road in any new development should be named after the family who last ploughed the land. That would focus some minds!’

Since that exchange I have also posted about Town's new project at Millers Field in Oundle, where they are supporting an innovative continental-style building-group ('baugruppe') to create a state-of-the-art sustainable housing development designed to their specific requirements. Interestingly the Millers, after whom the development is named, are seeking to do something excellent in memory of their father who purchased the land back in the 1960s. One is tempted to assume they might have got more cash selling anonymously to a local housebuilder, but that wasn’t their primary motivation.

If only more landowners thought like this!