Affordable mixed use housing developments: do they really work?

Planners and the planning system itself, particularly in London, came in for criticism at this one-day conference, which highlighted the tensions between the public sector and the development industry. Both sides were well represented and strong views were expressed by both. Four of the papers are summarised below:

• Andrew Wilson Head of Residential Development Tesco: Encouraging the public sector to be realistic
• Andy King Associate Director Indigo Planning: How planning can enable development
• Keith Cox, Director of Health Care Swanke Hayden Connell Architects: Independent living - new opportunities
• Tim Stonor Managing Director Space Syntax: Utilising the space in and around buildings effectively

Some interesting views and facts emerged from the papers presented and from the useful discussion, which followed the papers; it was evident that many developers feel confusion, resentment and irritation with local planning departments over development proposals. Chief among complaints expressed were:

• being expected to be major providers of social housing
• the lack of understanding on the part of the public sector that developers have to make a profit
• the complexity of the planning system and the length of time taken to get planning approval for developments which include housing
• the rising scale of contributions now demanded from developers under S106
• being compelled to work with an RSL selected by the local authority

In spite of these gripes, there are examples where some local authorities, such as the London Borough of Camden, have successfully adopted strategies for working with developers, which are acceptable to both parties.

Andrew Wilson noted that the social function of housing provision has been thrust on developers but that restrictions are applied to the private sector by the public sector, which wants them to do as they are told. Mixed-use schemes cannot meet all housing needs, and there is a conflict between the public sector's desire to provide permanent housing with rights in perpetuity and the aims of a company like Tesco, which has to adapt to changing retail conditions. Planning obligations should therefore not last longer than the life expectancy of a commercial development. Limits on residential car parking provision often means that residents will park in adjacent commercial - in this case supermarket - car parks, depriving customers of spaces and affecting profits. Development schemes have to be viable and public subsidies are not always available. In London, for example, the GLA tells the developers how much profit they may make, and although figures and costs change, there are delays in planning, the market may crash etc, and there is no compensation for the developer if things go wrong. Planning obligations should reflect commercial constraints and there should be consistency in grant availability so the developer can more accurately forecast whether the scheme is viable.

During the questions that followed, Andrew Wilson also claimed that purchase of a cheap site means that the developer has to provide more under S106. Agreements should be more flexible and let the developer cut back on his contribution if no grant is forthcoming. The present system is absurd and is abused, particularly over the definition of 'key workers', of which the Housing Corporation lists 13 categories, all from the public sector. Eligibility for affordable housing should be based on income and not occupation, and the government is looking at this again. In an attempt to speed up the planning process, Camden organises pre-meetings for developers attended by experts, and this has been successful. In spite of such good practice, the challenge to the planning system is implementation - the guidance is not wrong. However, Tesco is now into 2 years of S106 negotiations with Streatham with no end in sight.

Andy King acknowledged the difficulties outlined in the previous paper, and indicated that the planning system was struggling, especially with mixed-use developments. He blamed a crisis in professional education for planners' lack of training to deal with affordable housing. After defining mixed use as relating to a single building, a single development site or to a collection of sites, he traced government policy on mixed use up to PPS1 (February 2005). Delivering affordable housing is now at the top of the mixed-use agenda, and affordable housing in mixed-use schemes can and does work, subject to a scheme's viability. Mixed use is 'sexy' although some decision makers struggle with the concept of commercial and residential use living side by side, and some sites are not suitable for such. He then described B & Q's Shannon Corner scheme in New Malden, for which B & Q had been encouraged by the GLA and the London Borough of Merton to pursue mixed use after failing to satisfy their original planning requirements.

Shannon Corner west elevation - residential zone Image of model supplied by B & Q

The revised scheme includes 52 apartments, of which 30% are affordable, (less that the GLA's 50% criteria but meeting Merton's), a first floor B & Q warehouse with offices above, and individual shops on the ground floor. 10% energy generation has been achieved via a combination of wind turbine, ground source and photovoltaics. After describing it as car dominated and unacceptable in 2002, the GLA commented in January 2005 that the scheme had the hallmarks of an exemplary form of sustainable development.

Andy's advice for achieving a successful mixed-use scheme included:

• approaching it with an open mind
• considering and documenting all possible options early on
• being upfront and transparent regarding viability and economic issues
• using good visual aids in explaining the scheme
• getting consistency in personnel involved
• observing and learning from best practice

Keith Cox promoted the idea that not all-affordable housing is for young impoverished workers, and there is a social need to provide for older people, who are looking for a calmer life, so the demand is different. Up to now, the housing market has reacted to old age but has not been proactive. However, with the rapid increase in the number of older people living longer, it is clear that the traditional care network of extended family is no longer there, assets are often locked up in property, pensions are predicted to melt down, places in care homes are limited, costly and outdated, and care resources and social services are stretched. The complicated benefits system results in much confusion for older people about their entitlements. What is required in urban centres is an 'extra care' scenario which provides the services needed - pharmacy, chiropody, day care centre, medical treatment etc - close at hand. He believes there should be a use class order for elderly care units

Tim Stonor of Space Syntax talked about masterplanning, which should harness the aspirations of the client and lead to a joint design vision. Controversially, in the context of other views expressed here, he believes the British negotiation-based planning system has great credit, compared with other countries where the system is often much more rigid. Looking at our legacy of recent architecture there have been failures, especially in affordable housing, and maybe our good intentions have failed because we have not watched the user - something his practice spends much time doing. The end result of this activity leads to 'evidence-based design' which uses tools developed to measure connectivity and integration.

As an example he showed the Elephant and Castle redevelopment area, whose coherent 1916 urban form had by 2002 been seriously fragmented, so that the major routes through the area no longer linked up.

The new development framework aims to get back linkages, but mixing uses has to be done carefully. It is important to have retail where the footfall is high (the 'heat'), and away from the heat retail will struggle, but residential use is acceptable.

He also looked at the use of the model for the Stratford City master plan. This area is a big hole in the urban fabric, and the master plan is important in deciding how the hole is filled and connections made to other places. The original master plan did not show much 'heat' and so was redrawn to a smaller block size to generate more. This Arup/Space Syntax plan is now going forward.

During other papers and the final discussion the following issues, views and suspicions were raised:

• in some cases a high percentage of affordable housing is being demanded in order to put off developers
• local authorities tell surveyors what figures they want to see in a housing needs survey, and the surveyors oblige
• many things which should be dealt with under building control are now dealt with through planning
• instead of commissioning expensive consultants, a team of all parties should be formed and expertise shared, especially since often the required information already exists
• there is a need to make reports shorter, more intelligible and accessible, to the public as well as professionals
• local authorities will fail to deliver on the government's regeneration policy unless they adopt a more flexible policy towards developers

It was concluded at the end of the day that everyone wants to get development projects moving but that the planning system is too slow. In the future mixed-use developments will provide and increased proportion of affordable housing, and we should take the opportunity to resolve any problems now. This was a useful note on which to end a lively conference, which threw up some interesting issues.