Day 1 presentations a

Design Skills Symposium 2011, Tollbooth, Stirling

Design Skills Symposium 2011WelcomeDay 1

Jim MacDonaldChief Executive, A+DS

“Delivering Better Places”


design skills symposiumdelivering better places

Kevin MurrayChairman, Academy of UrbanismDirector, Kevin Murray Associates

why is DBP important?

Kilmarnock - Initial analysis and recommendations

Kilmarnock - Initial analysis and recommendations

taking responsibility

the team is changing….

aims for day 1

1 reflect on your own experience …and that of others

2 what are the barriers to DBP?

3 how might these be overcome …collaboratively?

day 1

Stirling context Peter MorganLocal economic development Sarah LonglandsPlace & development economics Steve Tolson

Health & places Tom SteeleGreen networks, ecology Max HislopWorkshop 1Plenary

day 2

Focus on your ideas around

• concept development• solutions in placemaking• collaboration and integration

day 3

• making it all happen• how to deliver• idea development to implementation

• learning from each other – peer review

Peter MorganChief Planning Officer, Stirling Council





Sarah LonglandsResearch Associate, Centre for Local Economic Strategies

Local Economic Development: the role of place and diversity

Sarah Longlands

Research Fellow (CLES) Centre for Local Economic Strategies

27th September 2011

Why do we need a new story for economic development?

We’ve had more than a decade of economic development but inequality between and within places has grown. Many places still struggle. Why?

Process of place making and objectives of economic development are not always well aligned and frequently disjointed

Legacy of regeneration suggests we need to look again at who really benefits from place-making?

Curitiba, Brazil Integration of economic, spatial and transport planning

‘A city designed for people not planners’

Final thought......here mixing doesn’t happen

Who are the place makers?Paraisopolis, Sao Paulo

A better place = a ‘resilient’ place

“Resilience is the capacity of a system to deal with negative change without collapsing, to withstand shocks, and to rebuild itself and learn”

Places which go.....

Resilience

McInroy & Longlands (2010) Productive local economies: creating resilient placeswww.cles.org.uk

The development process model

• Anticipation - being clear on the concept for the place,

and why• Initiation - projects that will kick start the process of

making the concept ‘real’ • Design - turning the concept into physical form and service

delivery proposals • Implementation - processes supporting how the place is

built• Stewardship - long term maintenance and management

necessary to grow place VALUE over time. Scottish Government (2011) Delivering Better Places in Scotland. A guide to learning from broader experience.

Delivering resilient places • Effective working relationships between public,

commercial but also social partners• Leadership – place delivery must not depend solely upon

rules and regulation. Also needs vision and imagination• Important role of the public sector – identifying

opportunities, organising partners, providing resources, de-risking projects. Also political dimension

• Economic value of place making process – eg through procurement and employment - making better use of the resources that we already have

• Place policy = economic policy! –connecting economic development with other policies of place. Resilience model as a tool to support the design and development process.



Steven TolsonDirector Ogilvie Group, RICS

Investment Inputs Citizens, Developers and the State

Steven Tolson

Delivering Better Places

Delivering Better Places in Scotland

• Delivering Better Places Summary• The Place Promoter (Vauban Case Study)• Consumer / Citizen Demand, Value,

Development Viability and Investment • A Delivery Model through Multi Developer

Participation

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/336587/0110158.pdf

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/336587/0110158.pdf

Place Quality is Important

“Too much development in Scotland is a missed opportunity and of mediocre or indifferent quality. “

Scottish Government’s Council of Economic Advisers, First Annual Report, 2008

Good Leadership A Champion who Promotes and stays with the Project

• A leader drives the project, breeds confidence, reduces risk & widens participation

• A Place needs a passionate promoter

• The Leader must galvanise support and delivery

• The Leader must foster a place making culture

• A Leader can not be a shrinking violet

Co-ordinated DeliveryJoined up working with NO SILOS

An orchestrated approach where interests are stitched together

Control the spatial development framework

A Master Plan is not just a drawing with aspirational statements.

A Master Plan should be a proposition that:

• market tests• understands infrastructure

requirements • development appraisals testing

viability (business case)• delivery methodology.

Exercise ownership powerParticipation rather than offloading due to fear of risk

Attract funding for advance infrastructure provision

Long Term Investment through 30 + year loans

Secure design quality through procurement strategies

• The State should lead and participate as well as promote.

• Making a Place is an Investment (create & manage asset)

• Delivery through multi developer participation not single entity

A multi developer approach speeds delivery, spreads

risk, creates a competitive environment and produces

variety that helps form a socially balanced community

IJBURG

Investment & Stewardship over time

• Asset Management not Development

• Cultivate place to gain positive reputation

• Good stewardship helps enhance value

Mains Estate, Milngavie

Pride in Place, Mains Estate, Milngavie Developed by Lovell in 1990. Need sufficient funds to ensure good

maintenance but good landscape should achieve good value.

Vauban

A New “Green” Community for Freiburg

Vauban - A new place in an Intelligent City helped by a Place Promoter

• Chief Planner, Professor Wulf Daseking a person with leadership qualities and vitality bringing influence in Freiburg.

• Daseking and team not only plan they deliver.

• Also strong political leadership allows focus on long term investment commitment

Leaders are prepared to take RISKS

Simple Proposition for Freiburg

• Freiburg seeks to keep its people in its City.• Freiburg leaks young people out of the City in search

of affordable accommodation. • Young people commute many kilometres between

home and work. Bad for the city (congestion), bad for the planet (emissions), bad for social cohesion and bad for city prosperity.

Can we do the same in Scotland?

Going home for Lunch in Vauban In Freiburg 24% walk 28% bike, 20% drive and 18% by bus or tram

Individual Houses in Vauban Variety of shapes and sizes. Not outstanding architecture but it doesn’t matter

Vauban Resident’s Car Parking

No parking by house with resident Car Parking on the edge of Vauban – Allowed 20 mins to unload by front door

Sustainable Housing producing more energy than used

Market in the Square Vauban

Place managed by

Vauban Forum Community with Freiburg Municipality.

A Mixed Use Place with Housing, Education, Retail,

& Offices.

Consumer, Developer and the State

Plot Purchase / Tax State

PlaceInfrastructure

TaxCitizen /

Customer

Property Purchas

e

Developer

The Place Network Priorities, Risk and Value

The Key Players

• Citizen / Consumer – Long Term Investor• Developer & Funders – Short Term Investor• State – Long Term Investor

3 Key Values of the Citizen / Consumer

Dominant GroupComfort, Convenience and Familiarity

Subordinate Group Opposite values to Dominant Group

House Builder’s Motivations

Tried and tested product that:1. Is familiar and known to sell2. Is built with relative ease3. Gets quick statutory consents 4. Has cost price certainty once above DPC level.5. Is programmed and managed efficiently6. Minimises RISK

House Builders satisfy the Dominant Group’s Values of Comfort, Convenience and Familiarity

Specialist [Creative] Developer

Bespoke product that is:1. Different (less familiar) and value less obvious2. More complex to design and build3. More difficult to get statutory consents 4. Less cost certainty5. More challenging to manage work in progress6. Carries more RISK and UNCERTAINTYA Specialist Developer’s core customers are likely to

be from the Subordinate Group.

Some Issues for Good Quality Urban Development

• Need clients who appreciate good design and are “informed”. It’s not just about the designer.

• Urban site characteristics need a design solution that fits (none standard). Therefore, non volume developer has greater opportunity to be competitive

• However, specialist developer find it more difficult to access funds so development scale limited to equity input

• Public project procurement barriers due to process and evaluation favours financial strength of corporate entity (risk aversion).

The Burrell Company Edinburgh Projects that

fit the Place

Valuation and Funding

• Mortgage for purchase of completed dwelling• Development Project Funding

Level of Funding based on Loan to Value (LTV) Mortgage 70%-90% (if you are lucky)Development Funding 60%-70%

Loan on value not on price. Therefore the Valuer has an important role to play

Valuation Approach• Two valuation elements

- Occupier Functionality- Investment Value

• Value of Good Design- “Few people treat housing as a work of art” It is a

luxury that most can’t afford”.- Premium for Design is possible but only if purchaser

is convinced they will get their money back- Premiums more likely where there is “intelligent”

design such as green sustainable housing where there are energy savings benefits

Valuers don’t value it if the People don’t value it!

The Valuation of a Place• What is the ownership interest(s)?• Single interests – shopping mall etc. Value

based on an investment method – capitalisation of a net rental income.

• Multi interests –Value based on summation of investments (landlord and tenant) and owner occupation value.

• Values of individual assets strongly influenced by Place reputation

Better Places in Multi Ownership?

• Single Ownership with good estate management practices – London estates

• Long term Places in Multi Ownership. Quality depends on multi owners coming together to establish and care for the Place. But State has reduced its role and self help approach is variable. (note self help is not “convenient”).

• Possible collective benefit from Place Leasehold arrangement

Good Reputation = Good Value• Good Places are not about style but substance• Good Places take 20+ years to be recognised.

Requires a combination of good physical design, people’s activity and interaction and collective caring for the Place.

• Valuers don’t think that good architecture represents higher values but they do recognise that a place’s reputation will be reflected in market demand and value.

Place making design does have long term value

Lessons from Continental Europe

• More sociability with less concern over privacy. • Continentals love their cars but also use public transport.• State is active in making places, adopts a long term

investment approach and takes risks.• Planners have greater respect and are at the top table• State limits the scale of developers participation. There

is wider participation from individuals and small companies.

• Greater variety achieved giving consumer choice.

Familiarity

A modern application of a

recognised housing form.

Urban Housing Block of Town Houses and Detached Based on Ijburg Typology

32no Town Houses

12no Detached Houses

Block 102m x 92m

48 dwellings per hectare

Hypothetical Development Appraisal for Infrastructure and Housing Development

Housing Development Serviced Land Valuation

32no Town Houses @ £200,000 (Parc URC @ £180k) £6,400,000

12no Detached Houses @ £256,000 £3,072,000

Gross Development Value £9,472,000

Development Costs £7,232,406

Site Value after fees & finance £1,962,255

(£44,597 per plot)

Infrastructure Development Valuation (non serviced land)

Gross Development Value £1,962,255

Infrastructure Costs £883,048

Site Value after fees & finance £999,671

(£22,720 per plot)

Cost of Quality

• Evidence from Exemplars suggest design quality cost around 20% more than conventional development costs.

• There is no evidence that developers can recover this additional cost therefore the impact is on land value.

• The perimeter block value based on 20% design cost premium reduces the land value from £1,962,000 to £21,000. (NIL VALUE)

Delivery through a Multi Developer Approach• Europe - State is the Place Developer• Scotland - public sector has assets but is risk averse • Serviced sites sold to multi developers (volume, small

builders, housing co-ops, associations and individuals for serviced plots)

• Greater range of dwellings creates healthy competition, quick delivery and a balanced community.

• Public sector has access to relatively long term finance whereas private sector has little equity and debt is difficult.

• Public sector needs to use its covenant strength and think about guarantees. Public sector needs to take more risks.

Public Sector Partner

JV PlaceDeveloper

Private Sector

PartnerDeveloper

Equity Cash Match for Assets

AgreementsShareholders

Asset ManagementDevelopment Management

LoanConstruction

ExternalPrivate Debt

Funders

Public LoansPWLB Jessica TIFS etc

Developer “A”

Developer “B”

Developer “C”

Developer “D”

Multi Developer Delivery Approach

Development Agreements

Land Asset

Summary• We need creative informed Leaders who can inspire a

change of culture. These leaders should be at the Top Table of Decision Making

• Get clear and consistent joined up design policies. • We need a switch to long term investment having faith

that good place making will bring value in the end. • Place makers need to have skills in economics and

delivery• We should refrain from talking about style and

concentrate on the real ingredients of place; PEOPLE! • We should not be frightened to take a risk

Urban Design in the Real Estate Development

Process

Steve Tiesdell & David Adams

Wiley – Blackwell

FURTHERREADING

PLACE MAKING

DELIVERY

September 2011

COFFEE BREAK



Tom SteeleNHS Forth Valley

Making the Most of Property & AssetsDeveloping a Property & Asset Management Strategy (PAMS) for publicly supported bodies in

Forth Valley

Tom SteeleDirector of Strategic Projects & Property,

NHS Forth Valley

Current Context

• The Christie Commission highlights the opportunity presented by asset management and supports a more strategic and joined up approach amongst public sector bodies: “We recommend all relevant public bodies must participate in the preparation of a joint long-term asset management plan under the aegis of each local community planning partnership, based on a shared assessment of the current conditions of their assets”.

• Scottish Futures Trust, Improving asset management Across the Scottish Public Sector.

• John Swinney, Spending Review announcement, 21st September.

The Challenge to be addressed

• Too many buildings, often located in the wrong places, unsuitable for delivering today’s customer focused services and modern working practices, occupied by individual organisations/services rather than local partnerships, and wasting scarce financial and environmental resources.

FORTH VALLEY

FORTH VALLEY

ALLOA

The Publicly Supported Bodies in Forth Valley

NHS Forth ValleyStirling CouncilClackmannanshire CouncilFalkirk CouncilCentral Scotland PoliceForth Valley CollegeCentral Scotland Fire & Rescue ServiceUniversity of StirlingScottish Ambulance Service

Building AreaReplacement

ValueDisposal

Value

Current backlog

maintenance expenditure requirement

Annual Costs

Occupancy – rate, rents, energy, maintenance, cleaning etc

Lifecycle replacement of

building components &

engineering systems

1.1 million sq.m

£4 billion£1

billion£100 million

£55 million per annum

£55 million per annum

Forth Valley Publicly Supported Bodies Property Portfolio

Why are we doing this?

• Mandatory requirement

• One of the SG new policy aims is “To support and

facilitate joint asset planning and management with other

public sector organisations”

• A recent Health Facilities Scotland literature review

identified circa 30 different reviews/studies

Why are we doing this?

• Provides a stable base from which strategic asset investment decisions can be made (Hub) – How can these investment decisions be made without having a PAMS?

• Efficient management of the publicly supported sector’s asset base is critical to the delivery and performance of public services - facilitating change and performance improvement as well as enhancing service users’ experience.

Aim of the Forth Valley PAMS

• The overall aim of this initiative is to ensure that all of

these bodies invest their public funding in relation to

property and assets in ways that supports the Scottish

Government's national priorities and vision for a Scotland

that is Wealthier and Fairer; Smarter; Healthier; Safer

and Stronger, and Greener.

The PAMS Process

Where are we now?

Where do we want to be?

How do we get there?

• Who is responsible for delivering it?• How will we know we have achieved what we set out

to do?• Implementing the Performance Monitoring

Methodology in the new Guidance

The Past Strategy

• Past Strategy has been “Replace old with new”

• Despite relatively healthy capital programmes over

recent decades – much of the “old” remains & backlog

maintenance continues to grow

• Economic climate for next decade certainly makes such

a strategy highly unaffordable in terms of both capital

and revenue

The Future Strategy

• Makes better use of the existing property portfolio rather than spending capital on new buildings and rationalises the existing estate, using the best buildings which are customer centred, good quality, efficient and sustainable

• Facilitates and enables joined-up partnership working which in turn will further drive down the size of the overall estate and release revenue and achieve carbon savings

Opportunities for improvement

• Improved utilisation of existing space within individual

organisations through elimination of under used and

surplus accommodation

• Shared use of space/buildings across the publicly

supported bodies

• Development of “New Ways of Working”

• Support & back office services integrated across the

publicly supported bodies

A Continuum of Change

Option Appraisal

• A detailed appraisal of three points on the continuum of change (three options)

Do minimum Reference ProjectMore ambitious project

Note: These are not three conventional options - they are points on the continuum of change that we have selected for examination.

But...its not easy!

Property Groupings Property Types

Reduction in Space Option 1

Do MinimumOption 2

Reference Project

Option 3More Ambitious

Project

10% 15% 25%

PPP/PFI Properties

Hospitals

0% 0% 0%Health Centres

Offices

Building dependent & regionally dependent properties

Non-PPP/PFI Hospitals 25% 40% 65%

Residential Homes & Day Centres 25% 40% 60%

Regionally dependent but not building dependentNon PPP/PFI Health Centres & Clinics 25% 40% 60%

Staff Residential 100% 100% 100%

Building & regionally independentIndustrial / Stores 25% 45% 60%

Offices / Administration 22% 30% 60%

Next Steps

• Technical and feasibility studies

• Draw on best practice examples from within Forth Valley

• Systematic review of settlements including stakeholder

and public engagement taking account of demographic

need and travel planning

• Outline implementation plan for the preferred way

forward

• Performance Monitoring Plan to enable progress against

the implementation plan to be measured in terms of

performance and impact.

Summary

• A catalyst and enabler for service integration and

improvement• Must be inherently flexible – to allow opportunistic

projects to be undertaken• Best practice asset management – leading to informed

investment decision making• Given the Spending Review implications for capital and

revenue – do nothing is not an option • Never been a better time for doing this – hopefully

strategic asset management will always be done this way in the future

Questions/Comments



Max HislopGlasgow Clyde Valley Green Network Partnership

Design Skills Symposium

Liveable Places: Green Networks

Max Hislop Programme Manager, GCV Green Network Partnership

Liveable places: Green Networks

Overview

• Green Networks• Green Networks v Green Infrastructure• Integrating Green Infrastructure• IGI Design Studies• Key lessons


National Planning Framework 2

Central Scotland Green Network:

“… A strategic network of woodland and other habitats, active travel routes, greenspace links, watercourses and waterways, providing an enhanced setting for development and other land uses and improved opportunities for outdoor recreation and cultural activity”


The CSGN: regional partnerships


GCV Joint Structure Plan 2000

• a landscape to enhance identity• walking and cycling routes; • linked habitats; • an environment to attract investment;


GCV Green Network: Outcomes

• STRONGER COMMUNITIES– well-designed, sustainable places to live

• HEALTH IMPROVEMENT– attractive locations in which to exercise or relax

• BIODIVERSITY AND THE ENVIRONMENT– robust diverse habitats and adaptation to climate

change

• ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT– attractive locations for businesses, tourism and

employees


Green Networks v Green Infrastructure

What is Green Infrastructure?

“Those design elements within developments

that contribute to the delivery of the Green Network,

brought together in a place-making masterplan.”

GCVGNP IGI Seminar, March 2011

Integrated Urban Infrastructure

Integrated Green Infrastructure


Why ‘Integration’?

“Quality places work well because the necessary physical and social infrastructure is planned and provided as an integral part of the overall development programme.”


Why ‘Integration’?

“The design of external spaces is as important a masterplan consideration as the design of the buildings…

Unfortunately, in some proposals it was evident that the landscape had been dealt with as an afterthought, and that open spaces were residual – the parts left over once road and plot layouts had been determined”


Integrating Green Infrastructure

• 5 Design Elements


Scottish LegislationWater Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) RegulationsGBR 10

10.Discharge …. from a surface water drainage system to the water environment …..

(a) All reasonable steps shall be taken to ensure that the discharge shall not result in pollution to the water environment

(d) the discharge shall not contain any water run-off from any built developments…

…unless following construction those developments or construction sites are drained by a SUD system equipped to avoid pollution of the water environment;SUDS are th

e law!


Water management

• Sustainable Urban Drainage– Reduce Flooding– Reduce Pollution

• SUDS v Naturalised SUDS– Filter strips– Green Roofs– Pervious surfaces– Swales– Detention basins– Ponds and wetlands


Water management

•The use of SUDS is seen as a primary objective by the Government.•The aim of SUDS is to mimic natural drainage.•Watercourses should not be culverted as part of a new development … and existing culverts should be opened whenever possible.•The area of impermeable surface should be kept to a minimum in all new developments

1. Policy2. Current conditions3. Design Study inputs


Access networks

• Networks provide– opportunities for physical activity – access to the outdoors– increased accessibility within

settlements

(Scottish Planning Policy, 2010)

• Paths/Cycle paths– Signage, Lighting, Surface

quality– Shared or segregated

• Walkable Neighbourhoods


Access networks3. Design Study inputs2. Current conditions1. Policy

•Street layouts should …allow walkable access to local amenities•New open space and other facilities should be accessible on foot and bicycle •…planning authorities and developers should identify opportunities to create and enhance networks between open spaces and avoid fragmentation.


Habitat networks

• Encourage connectivity between habitats to improve:– viability of species– viability of isolated

ecosystems– adaptation to climate change

(Scottish Planning Policy, 2010)

• Habitat:– Woodland– Wetland– Grassland

• Retention and mitigation• Creation and Management


Habitat networks3. Design Study inputs2. Current conditions1. Policy

•A strategic approach to natural heritage … linked together in integrated habitat networks can make an important contribution to … biodiversity. •Planning Authorities should seek to prevent further fragmentation or isolation …and identify opportunities to restore links•…should seek benefits for species and habitats from new development


Green and open space

• Important for our quality of life:– social interactions and community

well-being– interaction with nature– character/identity of a place

• Connecting them in a green network provides enhanced benefits

(Planning & Open Space, PAN 65, 2008)

• Formal– Parks, gardens, playspace, sports

areas, cemeteries and allotments

• Informal– Amenity and natural greenspace

• Quality – fit for purpose


Green & open space3. Design Study inputs2. Current conditions1. Policy

•The open space strategy …should be taken into account when preparing development plans and deciding planning applications.

•Local development plans …should set out specific requirements for the provision of open space as part of new development …how much, of what type and quality


Stewardship over time

• Arrangements for management, aftercare and maintenance may be as important as the actual design

(Designing Places, 2001)

• Maintenance– to preserve the condition of spaces

• Management– a long-term perspective– flexible to respond to needs

(Planning & Open Space, 2008)


Stewardship over time3. Design Study inputs2. Current conditions1. Policy

Planning authorities and developers should :•aim to create new open spaces which are fit for purpose, maintained and sustainable over the long term.

•work together to ensure that proper arrangements are in place for the long term management of any proposed open space


Jackton and the Gill Burn Valley


Reinforce Jackton Control the urban edge

Enhance the Gil Burn Valley Create identifiable neighbourhoods


Before and After


key lessons:

1. IGI delivers green spaces which are multi-functional and valued

2. Spatial analyses are available to inform the design process

3. Surface water management should be the starting point – not the road layout

4. Access & Habitat Networks can be aligned with ‘naturalised’ SUDS

5. Stewardship of the resource should be designed in to sustain quality and outcomes


3 key questions:

• Achieve better outcomes for people

• Make better use of resources & assets

• Spatial implications – what goes where?


Thanks for your time

www.gcvgreennetwork.gov.uk

http://www.gcvgreennetwork.gov.uk/


Workshop 1• what are the barriers to ‘Delivering Better Places?• how can we overcome barriers working collaboratively?

Meeting room 12nd Floor

Meeting room 22nd Floor

AtticTop Floor

Bar areaThis Floor

AuditoriumThis Floor

End Day 1



Diarmaid LawlorHead of Urbanism, A+DS

pote

nti

al develo

pm

ent

site

s/so

ft t

arg

ets

housing

business

leisure

mixed

other

pote

nti

al develo

pm

ent

site

s/so

ft t

arg

ets

dunblane

forres

Guidance

capacity analysisapprox area 375ha

SUBURBAN URBAN CENTRE

35-60DPH 69-93DPH 93+DPH

40-50DPH 60-70DPH 70+ DPH

context

density

SUBURBAN URBAN CENTRE

35-60DPH 69-93DPH 93+DPH

Capacity 17000 d 30000 d 41000 d

Population 34000 60000 82000

pote

nti

al develo

pm

ent

site

s/so

ft t

arg

ets

Better Neighbourhoods [CABE]

Shaping Neighbourhoods [UWE]

spin

e :

focu

sed

develo

pm

en

t alo

ng

a r

ou

te

80ha of land (approx)

Dwellings

3600 (45dph)

6400 (80dph)

8800 (110dph) prioritise……

the s

pin

e t

od

ay

in the landscape……

the s

pin

e t

od

ay

in the city……

the s

pin

e t

od

ay

Welcome to Stirling!

the s

pin

e t

od

ay


in disrepair…..

the s

pin

e t

od

ay


Inhabited…….

the s

pin

e:

seri

es

of

space

s

the s

pin

e

Castle