Anytime London’s public land hits the headlines, you can practically hear residential developers across the capital feverishly licking their lips.
Our sector has settled on a consensus: taxpayers own too much property; we should “release” it more quickly into private hands; in doing so, we’ll boost housing numbers, support economic growth, and replenish the public coffers.
So why did I experience such frustration and worry last week when reading about the London Land Commission’s Domesday Book-style new register of 40,000 surplus public sites? Enough land to build more than 130,000 homes – what’s not to like?
The current debate about London development is dangerously simplistic. No one can argue with the need for homes: population growth means London must nearly triple its yearly housing output. But that does not mean we should squeeze every last unit from every bit of surplus public land that we can find. There can be few more pressing public needs than housing, but to make this the sole focus of our debate is myopic.
Viewing residential units as targets on a sheet of paper risks playing into the hands of volume housebuilders, which would have the public sector sell freeholds left, right and centre. Once those assets are sold, they are sold for good, usually in return for a one-off receipt and a block of flats.
Anyone who says this is just the way of the world is wrong or just lazy: my company, and progressive, mixed-use developers such as Argent and Urban Splash have proven it repeatedly with large-scale, public-private style projects that show that a mix of uses provide the foundation for vibrant communities.
Governing bodies could choose to enlist such partners to help them devise long-term and inspiring solutions for the oncoming wave of building on public land. The alternative is a factory line of residential units and a diminishing public realm (in the literal sense).
The most encouraging thing? The Greater London Authority says it has resolved to take a more active role in getting siloed public bodies to work together, while clustering development around regeneration and transport hubs. This suggests leaders could be persuaded to move beyond piecemeal sell-offs that so appeal when plugging holes in individual budgets.
A bigger declaration of intent would be for the GLA to look again at its panel of prequalified public land developers, which at the moment consists largely of volume residential builders. I’m all for fast-tracking procurement processes, but why not populate this panel with young, energetic organisations offering more ambitious visions for the communities of the future?
In the meantime, next steps could involve public bodies doing two things. First, insist they demonstrate a long-term strategy for each holding, so that naming and shaming lists become a thing of the past.
And secondly, insist they look at a wider definition of value as a return on the land they hold, working much harder to prove that selling that public asset really is for a long-term greater good.
Richard Upton is deputy chief executive for U+I
