Developers play an increasingly important role in public life. With councils strapped for cash amid a period of extended austerity, they rely more on developers to fund social housing as well as larger-scale projects. But at the same time, the public has arguably become more suspicious towards them, perceiving developers as profit-driven with little regard for community needs.
As a result, a new report published by the Westminster Property Association, which focuses on how developers can appear more trustworthy, is timely. The WPA is a membership group for property owners, investors and developers. Its report, Building trust, by Tony Travers of the London School of Economics’ government department, highlights how, in a world where developers are funding large swathes of UK development, there is an growing necessity for the public, politicians and developers to co-operate more harmoniously.
A leading role
Travers tells EG: “Developers have become almost parastatal corporations. In Britain, we rely significantly on property development to pay for public goods – things that were previously paid for by the government. On top of that, housing is a much bigger issue, and developers are increasingly funding affordable housing.”
Given the UK’s current shortage of housing and the public’s evident desire for more supply, Travers suggests we need “a less adversarial way” to allow more development.
“You see developments being opposed everywhere,” he says. “Although many think London is overcrowded, it is not that dense by international standards. It is all about perceptions and people responding rationally to developers who approach them sensitively.”
Anna Bond, portfolio director for Grosvenor’s London estate, adds: “From our perspective, the public trust in the planning process and the intentions of the real estate industry has deteriorated and I think there are two reasons behind it. The planning system is nationalised essentially and it has become more politicised over the past decade.
“Secondly, as a real estate industry we have failed to describe how development is valuable both in financial terms and to society.”
Public opposition
The report suggests the public and media remain opposed to new development for a variety of reasons.
Some are alienated by the recent increase in scale and height of buildings, while many residents and existing businesses may feel they have no control over the planning process. Others simply perceive development as “endless” and “leaving the city looking like a permanent building site”.
Travers puts forward various proposals that he believes could reduce the current confrontational dialogue between developers and the public. He urges developers to be more sensitive towards local concerns and be clearer about what they are paying for and why.
Another area he highlights is the planning process. In his view, it is “complex and inaccessible”. He says: “At the very least, there needs to be opportunities for residents and local businesses to comment on priorities and impacts on the public realm around their homes or businesses.”
Planning shake-up
Westminster City Council has already begun to look at how to overhaul its planning processes.The new proposals include a restructuring of the leadership team, stricter rules on hospitality and greater resident involvement to improve transparency.
At a meeting in November, council leader Nickie Aiken announced that from 1 February, residents will be able to register to speak at planning committees.
So steps in the right direction are being taken, but Travers argues that more needs to be done. He also highlights that the public needs to be aware of the more positive aspects of development, including the benefits of developer contributions.
He says: “I walk along Tottenham Court Road and the whole road has been improved with new paving and trees. That’s been paid for out of developer contributions.
“But we have got to a point where the public mood has changed and people want higher levels of accountability. With that in mind, developers must find ways to be more understanding towards the public and give them a voice.”
Woes continue for Westminster
Despite Westminster City Council’s ongoing efforts to improve its planning processes, public and political rumblings of discontent persist, writes Emma Rosser.
Labour councillors have called for an investigation into the developer and local authority relationships behind the delayed development of Westminster’s 90-104 Berwick Street, which has been under construction for two years.
Councillor Pancho Lewis said: “Some serious questions have been asked about the way in which Westminster City Council… engages with developers and its agents. There are suspicions in the community that very cosy relationships exist.”
A petition started by Lewis calls for an investigation into financial links between developers, agents and public authorities.
A Westminster City Council spokesperson said: “We are working with the Berwick Street community to address concerns about construction in the area and ensure that disruption is kept to a minimum – including taking enforcement action against developers.”
The council announced last month that it would overhaul its planning process.
To send feedback, e-mail anna.ward@egi.co.uk or tweet @annaroxelana or @estatesgazette
