A report by Future of London has called on the real estate industry to “be a good ancestor” and ensure that the schemes it develops provide long-term benefits for local communities.
Building trust: Future of London argues that developer endowments would help cement long-term relationships between property companies and the communities they work in
The not-for-profit company with 60 member organisations from across the built environment sector, which aims to promote best practice in urban development, proposed establishing developer endowments to give communities a long-term source of income to use for their benefit. Future of London believes that “through stewardship models, communities can manage assets and shape how they are run”.
Stephen Passmore, author of the ‘Social Value: How to be a good ancestor’ report, adds: “We know endowments are a particular financial model and we’re talking a bit more broadly than that; we’re talking about a downpayment, or some kind of forward payment towards community capacity to continue their engagement and their interest in the places in which they live and work.”
The Social Value Act came into force in 2013 and requires those who commission public services to think about how those services can also deliver wider social, economic and environmental benefits. Over the past decade, the real estate industry has worked harder to make social value a core part of developments. Future of London worked with several developers, including Lendlease, Countryside and Mount Anvil, to compile the report.
Some developers could be forgiven for thinking that endowments to ensure their projects provide long-term social value would be yet another cost, on top of the various levies, legal commitments and biodiversity targets they already face.
However, one argument in favour of self-funded social value endowments is that they would be independent of local authority control, compared with current commitments such as Section 106, which can often be left unspent in local authority coffers.
Social value is inherent in what we’re doing. I don’t see it as putting money into a separate fund
Graeme Craig, Places for London
Maria Adebowale-Schwarte, commissioner for the London Sustainable Development Commission, set up to advise London’s mayor on making London a ‘sustainable world city’, says: “I’m not sure [Section 106 contributions] get delivered in a way that architects and town planners would like.
“We’re looking for endowments for people for centuries really, if we’re doing it properly, but a lot of people get lost when it comes to placemaking and citizen research.”
Some industry experts say good developers should already be contributing to local communities as standard practice.
Mark Williams, former president of retail and leisure body Revo and executive director at mixed-use project specialist RivingtonHark, says: “I’m not convinced [an endowment] is necessarily needed, as for developers such as Lendlease at [south London regeneration scheme] Elephant Park or Peabody [at its Plumstead – West Thamesmead scheme in south London], if they don’t get it right, their investment falls in value.
“Those types of projects are, by their very nature, developed by people with long-term interest in those areas. An owner of large parts of a town centre has both an economic responsibility to their investors and a social responsibility to the community they are investing in. If they don’t take responsibility they shouldn’t be investing.”
Williams adds: “If someone’s building housing on a greenfield site, it’s a question for the local authority whether some form of planning gain has to be met, and if that should be an endowment or community trust – but that is for the local authority, as the body representing people who will live there forever.”
Optional extra
Others questioned by Property Week agree that social value is already seen as more than just an ‘optional extra’ for successful schemes.
Graeme Craig, chief executive of Transport for London’s property company Places for London, says: “Social value for me isn’t an add-on. It’s not something that you start a fund for and then come back to in 10 to 15 years. For me, it’s the bread and butter. The way I think about Places for London is we will be around for decades, or hopefully centuries; what we are building will be around for a very long time.
Value judgement: some argue social value is already at the heart of big regen schemes such as Lendlease’s Elephant Park in south London
“Social value is inherent in what we’re doing. I don’t see it as putting money into a separate fund – it’s essential to what we do from the start.”
Having spoken to local communities, Future of London’s report suggests a sense of legacy is needed, but many communities lack the skills or ability to implement policies allowing a long-term legacy of social value to be established in their neighbourhoods.
The report also casts doubt on whether the sector is geared up for long-term strategic community placemaking. “Recalibrating the sector for long-termism will need systemic change,” the report states. “It can feel daunting for any player to grapple with; the reality is that it’s not down to one organisation.
“The private sector should welcome public players becoming more vocal and demanding social value. And communities living with the impacts of regeneration can be empowered to take responsibility for social value.”
We are looking for endowments for people for centuries really
Maria Adebowale-Schwarte, London Sustainable Development Commission
But for this to happen, communities need the knowledge, skills and capacity to become stewards of their local places, says Passmore.
“Countryside built something like one in every 17 new homes in London. They know what they are doing,” he adds. “They place great stock in supporting social value in the neighbourhoods in which they are working.
“[They are] thinking about social values in the longer term, rather than just as a sort of contractual obligation. Mount Anvil, Lendlease, Countryside and others look to build long-term partnerships with local boroughs, and with local community and resident groups.”
Checking in on schemes
After completing schemes, many developers already spend time gauging the reaction of communities as they begin living and working in a development. But Future of London’s
report opens up the question of how long developers should keep ‘checking in’ on schemes. The report recommends developers should try to capture data on schemes for 10 years after completion, to fully evaluate their social value.
However, Simon Bayliss, managing partner at architecture practice HTA Design, argues: “If people love living [in a scheme], and choose to live there, you don’t really need to ask them constantly what they like about living there.
“If you get the scheme right, it will be lastingly popular – that is the very notion of long-term sustainability, isn’t it? We are very committed to post-delivery occupancy and we’ve always thought we’ll go back after one year, and then after three, but if you ask after one year and they say ‘we love it’, they don’t actually have to be asked again.
“It may well be a very sensible and useful thing to do, but most people want to get on with their lives.”
