by John Robertson and James Fennell
These are uncertain times for new settlements and for well over 100 schemes now at some stage between concept and construction. The recent mothballing of Consortium Developments, a continuing series of well-publicised planning failures and the uncertainty arising from a new Secretary of State plus an increasingly green political climate have raised concerns about future prospects.
But even good new settlement schemes have rarely found success easily, although a few carefully conceived schemes still win through. This article is aimed at the prospective developer. It draws on past experience of new settlement successes and failures to provide practical advice, highlight potential pitfalls and point towards ways of increasing the prospects of success.
Planning background
It is important to understand the national planning framework under which new settlement proposals are considered.
Draft Planning Policy Guidance Note No 3: Housing (1989) indicates some basic guidelines, while subsequent ministerial statements provide the closest thing to an official view. The Government accepts that new settlements are a satisfactory form of housing provision and identifies what it sees as their particular advantage — developers can be expected to provide more infrastructure and community facilities in them than in other housing schemes.
Carefully sited new villages of 200 to 1,000 dwellings relieve pressures on existing villages and extend the variety of local housing. The case for larger new settlements, including social housing, is also accepted where existing communities face congestion and overloading of services.
As suitable locations, green belts, national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty and other statutorily protected areas are firmly ruled out. Sites must also be sensitively related to existing patterns of settlement and take account of the need to protect the countryside. The environment is not to be sacrificed to meet housing needs.
New settlements are not to be imposed on districts. While the Secretary of State has inserted new settlement policies in structure plans, this has usually been only to ensure that this housing option is considered. Such policies usually come with a set of criteria to guide developers — on locational factors, infrastructure requirements and sometimes employment provision. But the final decision on whether to include a new settlement in its plans, where and on what scale, is increasingly left to the local authority, reflecting a trend towards local decision-making.
If the authorities reject new settlements in their plans, prospective developers face an uphill battle. Government guidance takes a hard line against major schemes which do not emerge through development plans. The Secretary of State recently emphasised that planning appeals were not an acceptable route for new proposals.
The lessons
This policy background is not unfavourable, yet most new settlement proposals have been rejected. We have examined a dozen new settlement schemes, some which failed the planning process and some which succeeded; the implementation of schemes actually built has also been considered. These schemes range from Consortium Development’s new country towns of over 5,000 homes to a small traditional village proposal of 300 dwellings and include sites on green belt land, on former airfields and on “undevelopable” land.
The experience of these new settlements provides a number of clear pointers on factors to avoid and on what might help a proposal through the planning system and beyond. Many of these may appear self-evident, but some have been ignored in schemes which failed.
A clear, well-thought-out concept
The role of the new settlement must be carefully thought through from the outset. This will shape its location, scale, mix of uses, relationship with roads and other settlements, and its prospects of success.
Is it to be a self-contained community with a balance of homes and jobs or a housing scheme to serve nearby employment centres? Will it provide services for nearby villages with few of their own or leave these unaffected? What level and type of employment will it aim for? Is it designed to meet an identified planning need, to divert economic pressures or meet local housing demand for which sites have still to be found? What image is the settlement to have?
Emerging trends need to be borne in mind. New settlements with quality environments and housing are attractive locations for hi-tech firms and others who wish to attract and retain skilled staff. Current thinking suggests that new settlements will be increasingly employment-related if not employment-based — not just housing developments. Future settlements must aim to satisfy changing aspirations for living and working. High standards will be expected and a full range of facilities in an attractive, accessible area must be provided.
The future scale of the settlement needs to be considered. Is it to have room for future expansion or is it more important to calm local fears with measures to restrict growth to the originally planned level? This must also affect the choice of site and land requirements and will be a key factor in determining planning permission.
Careful phasing of development within a proposal can reduce fears about the scale and effect of a scheme, aiding the justification of housing land release in excess of immediate five-year supply needs.
The quality of the scheme, its overall design and provision of open space will not in itself win planning consent. But a carefully thought-out concept for the settlement, and a clear vision of what it should be and do, can capture the imagination of the local authority, the public and DOE inspectors, and improve the chances of success.
Location
A developer’s choice of site may often be determined more by land availability than scientific selection, but the search should reflect as many as possible of the following:
- treat environmental factors with particular care; avoid green belts and other statutorily protected areas, land of high landscape or environmental value, and the best agricultural land; a site with low landscape prominence naturally contained by existing features has particular benefits;
- carefully consider the site’s relationship with existing settlements in the area. Avoid closing important open gaps and any coalescence with villages which harms their character. But new communities added to existing settlements with few services can work if both benefit from the union;
- previously developed or badly damaged land can offer planning advantages, and existing ecological habitats can usually be accommodated. Difficult sites can produce a better settlement design and, as Stockley Business Park demonstrates, modern landscaping methods can produce a quality environment from the most unpromising sites;
- ensure that the site can achieve adequate access to the road network and public transport systems;
- recognise that some areas are politically more receptive to new settlements than others and investigate this point early on. The importance of political factors should not be under-estimated;
- reconsider “undevelopable” sites where low acquisition costs and some vision may allow something unusual to be achieved.
Persuading the authorities
It is clearly better if planning consent can be negotiated with the local authority. Otherwise they have to be persuaded through the broader arena of the development plan process.
To avoid starting off with a major handicap, a new settlement, whether proposed in the first instance by a developer or local authority, should emerge through the structure or local plan process.
Prospective developers must influence the relevant plans during preparation to achieve a more favourable planning framework for their proposal. This requires careful monitoring of critical dates during plan preparation.
It is vital to influence plans as early as possible. Submissions to the first draft of a plan, or, even better, before the first draft is published, can be more effective than during later public consultation stages, when land allocations have been made and extensive consultation and research carried out. A carefully presented proposal with sound justification can shape early thinking on the plan while it is more fluid and attitudes more receptive.
However, convincing representations should also be made at other public consultation stages. Developers cannot afford to miss any opportunities to influence plans and local authority thinking. And such representations are effective; a recent study showed that 50% of representations by landowners to local plans were accepted by the inspector and 30% resulted in changes to the local plan.
A minimum aim of representations would be a housing allocation requiring sufficient unidentified sites to justify a new settlement. A specific new settlement policy with locational criteria favouring the developer’s site can clearly help, but can also generate competing schemes. A considered approach is needed.
Winning the support of the local authority is more important than ever and, if it is clearly lacking, developers should reconsider their position. But remember that some new settlement proposals succeed despite an unfavourable development plan. Plan-makers cannot cover every eventuality. Even if initially hostile, officers and members can be won over by persistence and a well-conceived scheme of obvious quality which can be justified by planning aims and offers clear benefits to the area.
Make every effort to harness local political support for the scheme. Establishing the developer’s credibility and funding, generous planning gain and a well-thought-out and implementable masterplan all give local authorities confidence in an applicant’s ability to deliver something of quality and so reduce their own political risk. Well-presented masterplans and urban design illustrations can help to give a feel of the scheme and capture members’ imagination.
Finally, do not waste time and money on appeals unless the case is clearly overwhelming. However, public inquiries due for call-in by the Secretary of State must be anticipated.
Land acquisition
Obtaining land at a reasonable price must be a crucial factor for a successful development.
Where possible, options should be tied up well before new settlement proposals appear in development plans or sites are identified for housing development. This means second-guessing the planners and involves anticipation of events and readiness to take risks, always part of the developer’s role. Sound professional planning advice can perhaps reduce the level of risk.
Landowners’ expectations of land values must be kept to realistic levels. For this, the developer needs to demonstrate convincingly the cost implications of required infrastructure, social housing and community facilities. Costings from previous developments and a list of development plan requirements for the settlement can provide strong evidence with which to argue.
A significant advantage in acquisition can come from a site with obvious contraints that others consider undevelopable, combined with the imagination or vision to see potential.
Planning gain
Developers have offered a wide range of community benefits as part of new settlement proposals: country parks, nature reserves, new roads and bypasses, railway stations, golf courses, social housing, land or buildings for community facilities, funding for community management and for conservation.
Planning gain cannot transform a scheme with fundamental planning objections into an acceptable one.
Nevertheless, benefits which are perceived as generous and an opportunity not to be missed, which meet an identified need and strike the right chord with council members and the public, can go a long way, eg long-delayed road schemes or drainage works. They can certainly tilt the balance more favourably.
Councils expect developers, as a matter of course, to provide the infrastructure, community facilities and landscaping needed to make the settlement work. To gain any political benefit, more generous provision, that can help a wider community and capture public support is also needed.
Previous experience has shown that even generous planning gain will not overcome constraints such as green belt, or areas of attractive landscape or environmental importance. However, as Kettleby Magna illustrates, it can smooth the way against less severe constraints, including conflicts with development plans.
For such planning gain to be fully effective, it must be publicised. The community, the council members and the pressure groups who influence them must all be made aware of what is on offer. Promotion of a scheme should emphasise these benefits.
Public consultation and environmental impact assessment
These two important aspects are linked, since early consultation on the EIA at the survey stage provides vital input to the design process. This should shape the masterplan before it is fixed and so make a positive response to the real concerns of the local community. Greenfield sites are always likely to raise environmental objections. An early, and sometimes voluntary, EIA can be a sound investment to produce a robust scheme and to help counter opposition.
Promotion
Promoting a scheme can help at different stages, but publicity is a double-edged sword and needs to be used with care — it is different from consultation.
Brochures and public presentations to surrounding residents and council members can help to ensure that proposals are not misrepresented, that fears are allayed and the benefits made clear. If overdone, these can also breed mistrust of the developer’s motives and raise opposition that might otherwise have stayed dormant.
Taking pains to get the local press on your side, or at least not against you, can favourably influence the “overall reaction” to the scheme; this needs careful handling. A professional promotion team and strategy can help to win support in some circumstances, including meetings with council members, MPs, trade organisations and the press.
At later stages, good publicity campaigns can create an attractive image and draw new residents and firms. Milton Keynes illustrates how such campaigns can succeed.
Implementation
After planning consent new settlements may not achieve full success if their development and management is not properly controlled. The image of the scheme needs to be worked at.
A masterplan for the scheme, defining the broad layout and mix of uses, but with some flexibility, is necessary for a high-quality development. A project management body is needed to ensure that development follows this plan and to provide briefs for architects and builders. Legal agreements are required to bring certainty to the funding and provision of physical and social infrastructure.
Community facilities must come on stream to match housing development, otherwise an early sense of community will be lost. This means careful phasing and early funding by the developer. A significant business element in the project can help to generate this early funding.
The quality of design is important to the image of the settlement. Creating an overall style but variety within it has proven successful. A series of linked neighbourhoods with different architects and builders for each helps to create variety in housing form and tenure. Design control of future building is essential to maintain quality and can be dealt with through covenants on land and other means.
A local management body to run the settlement in the long term is crucial. This should be set up with funding from the developer, along with mechanisms to ensure maintenance of open areas and landscaping and to run community facilities. A variety of management forms are available — a residents’ committee, management trust or parish council — and the chosen form may change as the number of residents increases.
Conclusions
The above advice does not offer a sure way to success. Some settlement proposals have done many of the right things, and still failed. But, unless the site is in a Secretary of State’s back yard, these survival tips should at least ensure that a scheme avoids the more obvious pitfalls and has more than just a fighting chance of success. This approach, combined with appropriate professional assistance, can carry a scheme forward in a way which provides it with the best opportunity of being built. And some schemes do make it.
