Planning matters

Traditional consultation events such as public exhibitions often attract time-rich individuals in the community who hold strong views about development (and not always positive ones). However, communities are not single entities and it is important to find ways of encouraging the ‘silent majority’ - those who would not normally participate in the planning process but who could stand to gain from it - to engage.

 

In today’s 21^st cyber century, promoting participation through the use of social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter is thought to help to ensure that online communities ‘Friend’, ‘Follow’ and ‘Like’ proposed developments. But does the use of social media in the development sector also have unintended consequences that need to be anticipated and addressed?

 

There is no doubt (particularly to a Generation Y millennial like me) that sharing information and consulting on development proposals via social media platforms is a more relevant way to engage in the ‘digital by default’ world that we live in.

 

Other pros include:

Inclusivity: Traditional face-to-face methods of engagement are often dominated by the vocal minority. Online, via social media platforms, the silent majority may, however, be more likely to voice their opinions and engage in the consultation process.

Accessibility: Information can be spread quickly and accessed 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. With a tap on a phone or tablet, previously disengaged and underrepresented groups can become involved, respond and comment on consultations on pre-application projects, and on planning applications, with ease and speed.

 

Reach: In the UK, Facebook has a total of 44 million active users and Twitter 14 million. If used effectively, they can form part of a tailored engagement strategy to reach out to interest groups or to find out what the community at large is thinking.

Although there are clearly a number of pros, social media can also be counterproductive. Cons include:

 

Fake news: Just as prospective developers might want to set out their case and encourage instant and meaningful online consultation, self-appointed ‘anti-social mediaists’ can try to undermine and disrupt engagement and consultation projects by spreading misinformation, rumours and echo chambers.

Representation: The digital landscape has no geographical boundaries. As such, whilst social media platforms provide the opportunity to reach out to a wider demographic, there is a danger that feedback may not be representative of the local community/ those actually impacted locally.

Cyberactivism: Social media can be used as a way to mobilise NIMBY opposition and achieve digital activism objectives. Although unlike a localised neighbourhood petition gaining momentum as a result of door-to-door canvassing, e-campaigning is fast and far-reaching.

 

Based on the above pros and cons, should property developers be using social media to engage with the public as part of consultation processes? Interestingly, a survey undertaken by Remarkable Group and pollster YouGov, which involved asking over 1,400 UK councillors their opinions on social media in relation to planning consultation, found that:

• 75% of the 1,401 councillors interviewed said social media is an important or very important engagement tool;
• 34% believed public responses gathered via social media should be included as part of a Statement of Community Involvement (SCI);
• 60% believed developers should be engaging with local communities through social media; and
• 74% believed social media would add value when reviewing planning applications.

The importance and value of social media in planning-related consultations should not be taken for granted, although whether we will see application site notices and local plan and neighbourhood planning letters replaced with push notifications sent direct to smartphones - and church hall public exhibitions superseded by online forums - in the short term remains to be seen. But moving forward, using social media should be considered as a potentially vital component in a developer’s consultation and engagement strategy, whether it’s for monitoring social media activity, or actively engaging with it.

 

At Lichfields, we recognise the potential power and value of social media platforms and consider that digital outreach cannot be ignored. We know how to capitalise on the pros and combat the cons in development strategies. For more information please contact us.

I recently attended an annual conference on care homes and retirement living. It had a record-breaking attendance, cognisant of the growing awareness within the development industry of the importance of the care and retirement living sector in helping to meet our population’s diverse housing and care needs.

A message that spanned the conference is that there is growing demand but not enough supply in the sector. Policy and planning can play a fundamental role in helping to redress this imbalance, with the conference particularly noting that demonstrating need is ever more important in the planning process. It is worthwhile saying at this point that Lichfields’ Carepacity Toolkit could assist here, by evaluating the need for housing for older people, as well as assessing the potential of sites, quantifying benefits and impacts, and assisting in enabling delivery.

Whilst reductions in public funding have had their own impact on the supply and delivery of care and retirement housing, it was positive to hear at the conference that more funders are investing in the sector, which in turn is generating more opportunity for different models.

Funders include UK-based and specialist funding, Asia Pacific funds, Middle East funds and US real estate investment trusts. Retirement living investors include AXA, Legal & General, Goldman Sachs and AIG, alongside Bupa and Oaktree. This wide range of institutions involved demonstrates that the market is maturing and allowing for different developer and operator models. These include the “Propco[1]” model, whereby an investor rents a property to an operating company – an “Opco”. This can be viewed as a safer investment route as it relies on returns from rentals without involvement in the care operation. It is a competitive model, due to a limited number of established operators resulting in potentially lower yields.

The “Wholeco[2]” model provides an opportunity for the investor to construct a care operation, or partner with an operator. This model provides flexibility and potentially greater returns on investment, weighed against any risk derived from investing in specialist property and operating companies.

The “Smart Second Tier” model includes refurbishing modern or first generation care facilities. Here, investors support the operator with on-going investment and receive returns through increased rental income, or a share in the operating company. But refurbishment can be difficult if the facility continues operating, due to the impact of works on residents.

The range of investors and models allows for more flexible models to be provided for the end user too. This may include flexible ownership, rent-to-rent[3] or the provision of progressive levels of care (“progressive care developments”) within a single development. Progressive care developments enable people to move in as a lifestyle choice and while still active, in the knowledge that their new home is future-proofed to respond to their potentially changing future health and care needs. There were also examples of successful, intergenerational developments discussed at the conference, for meeting the housing needs of the full age range of the population.

All of the models for this type of development align well with the National Planning Policy Framework, which states that local planning authorities should plan for a mix of housing to address the needs of different groups in the community, including older people.

However, as with any new innovation in the development sector, and as discussed in Phil Jones’ recent blog, it is vital that both the public and private sectors increase their knowledge and evolve their understanding of care homes and retirement living, and embrace innovative approaches to meeting the country’s housing needs. This is ever more important as delivering care and retirement housing is a “people industry”, whereby different age groups have different wants and needs.

Wider social benefits that are realised from providing appropriate care and retirement housing were also promoted at the event. They include the amount of care a resident needs to receive reducing after moving in, due to the well-being benefits of enhanced social networks alongside reducing the level of worry regarding the maintenance and financial pressures of running a home.

There was also acknowledgement of the wider benefits from moves to care homes and retirement living freeing up housing stock in the general market; the knock-on effects can also help to meet the housing needs of an area.

Challenges that the sector faces within the planning system were also discussed by the majority of speakers. They included the grey area around C2/C3 use classes and financial implications relating to council policies for affordable housing provision. This is a debate that will continue, particularly if “progressive care developments” grow in popularity.

My last blog touched on the different typologies of care and use class/financial implications, as summarised below. It is important to note that the Use Classes Order does not allow for homes to change from Use Class C3 to C2 according to the residents’ needs. It is argued by many in the industry that progressive care developments should be “sui generis”, which again has implications on affordable housing policies.

The practicalities of providing care and retirement homes are important considerations for developers, operators, agents and planning officers, as with any development. For example, the location of such development is a key factor for residents, who need to be able to access services and facilities, and receive visitors. Additionally, as highlighted by operators at the conference, there is reliance on public transport by many care workers and therefore the ability for staff to travel to work by this mode is an important factor in locating such developments.

Whilst there are challenges for this ever-evolving sector and it is critical that national policy increases its focus on advising how local planning authorities could do much more in meeting need. It was encouraging to hear that the industry is already using innovative funding and development methods – and wanting to disseminate details widely.

To discuss Carepacity further, please get in touch: jennifer.nye@lichfields.uk  

Blog inspiration is a fickle process that can often strike at unusual times, as I discovered recently at a rural diversification seminar, where I was particularly intrigued by the implementation of monitoring technology in the agricultural sector. The pinnacle of this was a device that strapped around a cow’s neck to monitor core temperatures, rumination, stress levels, posture and gait - amongst other things. The device is then able to send notifications to the farmer’s phone, if there is any issue with said cow. This early warning system allows farmers to ensure that the best level of care can be provided immediately for each cow, and then be on hand immediately should something be wrong with the animal.

This led me to consider how UK agriculture will fare in a post-Brexit landscape and what role improved technology can have on farm diversification methods. Many farmers are currently reliant on their single farm payments through Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) subsidies to run their businesses at a profit. Should there be no such payment when we leave Europe, how will they balance the books without state funding?

Many farms without their single farm payments would not run at a profit. UK agriculture will have to adapt should these payments be changed, and farmers will have to be astute as they look to maximise profits to ensure that their bottom line remains healthy. When New Zealand stopped paying agricultural support in 1984, following a free market government sweeping into power, it was predicted that it would ruin their agricultural economy. In fact the opposite happened, with farmers proving to be shrewd businessmen and entrepreneurs that had the capacity to diversify and reduce their production costs to provide a viable business model.

It must be said however that subsidies were not as deeply entrenched in New Zealand culture as they are in the UK, having only been introduced in 1970 as opposed to post-World War II as in the UK. The diversification was borne out of necessity, and whilst not every farmer was able to diversify (an estimated 1% left the agricultural sector) the ones who were demonstrated that an agricultural economy not reliant on hand-outs can modernise and not just stay afloat, but also operate at a greater profit.

Leaving the EU will see the CAP disappear. The CAP disburses payments to farmers and landowners calculated by the amount of land that they own and as such they have served to artificially increase the value of agricultural land. Indeed land prices in New Zealand fell by 52% in the five years following the removal of their subsidies. This inflated land price has had negative impacts on both smallholding farmers and some smaller housing developers, as land prices have been artificially high - so incentivising a farmer to sell could make a residential development project unviable. The price of land rising has made development sites riskier as their profit margin has been diminished, and/ or their ability to make contributions to affordable housing have been diminished. At the same time, smaller farmers have seen larger farms receive much more subsidy, which has allowed greater investment in machinery and newer methods, increasing competition in the sector which they do not immediately benefit from.

With no subsidies guaranteed following Brexit, the UK Government recognises that now is the time for diversification and the modernisation of UK agriculture. The introduction of a £40 million fund allows farmers to be granted up to £35,000 for investment in farm productivity projects, ranging from robotic, driverless vehicles to battery storage for renewable energy systems on-site. This grant is to cover up to 40% of scheme costs, meaning the total investment must be at least £87,500 to qualify. [1]

Clearly this is a move in the right direction but the high investment price may rule out some of the smaller farmers from qualifying. These are the farmers who would benefit most from moving towards modern production methods, as they currently receive the least amount of CAP payments.

Moving from manual to automated farming methods may present the future for UK agriculture, as labour costs are removed from the cash flow. Indeed the agricultural robotic sector is growing fast, with Goldman Sachs predicting the market to be worth £240 billion over the next five years. As companies compete to offer the most cost-effective product, the entry cost to these automated agricultural tools will fall with time. [2]

Brexit therefore potentially presents UK agriculture with an opportunity to move away from farming methods not defined by market competition; the entrenched CAP subsidies do not promote cutting edge farming methods, as there is no sense of urgency within an agricultural sector dependent on state handouts. The removal of such subsidies in New Zealand is an example of a liberated agricultural sector but the social uncertainty and hardship that would be likely to be associated with the removal of subsidies may be too much to bear, and would present an unattractive choice for government.

Should land values tumble as they did in New Zealand, development viability in rural areas would increase, due to lower land acquisition costs. This has wide-reaching implications for the housing mix in rural areas; planning policy’s ‘Rural Exception Sites’ that have been dormant may suddenly become viable. This will be a relief to younger generations within these rural areas, who have seen house prices rise to more than 8 times that of national salaries, without accommodating the fact that rural wages are often lower than those found in urban areas. [3]

The removal of EU subsidies would see the return of responsibility to the farmer, who in turn would only be responsible to consumers in the market. This represents a significant change, as farmers would no longer have to fulfil EU-enforced criteria to qualify for their subsidies. Improved opportunities to implement better technologies could be created and the use of rural land diversified, as farmers and landowners look for more profitable utilisation. Furthermore, rural communities could be liberated from their slow decline through more affordable homes being delivered in the local areas, as development sites become more viable. This would allow rural areas to retain their younger populations.

Brexit uncertainty is overshadowing many sectors of the UK economy, and with no guarantee of subsidies post-Brexit, the agricultural sector must brace itself for the possibility that they will not be replaced. This will prove to be a challenging time without a doubt, but may also present one of the largest opportunities for UK agriculture to improve its productivity in decades, and for the makeup of these rural communities to see a substantial change to their population and housing mix –for the better.

See also Lichfields’ Insight into Rural Estates, on how farm diversification through the planning system can be a profitable endeavour.

 

Tel Aviv is a Smart City.[1] Built on the dunes of Mandate Palestine’s Mediterranean coast to the north of Jaffa, according to Patrick Geddes’s urban plan, it was initially planned as a Jewish suburb to Jaffa. Within twenty years of its existence, the neighbourhood was forced to adapt to absorb unprecedented waves of immigration of Jews feeling rising pressures in Eastern Europe. Tel Aviv’s growth was necessarily both haphazard and planned, with these characteristics still evident in the city’s built environment. In 2003 the city was inscribed as a UNESCO World Heritage Site, recognised for the historic core’s homogeneity of International Style buildings, and the integrity of Geddes’ urban plan.

As the antithesis of Jerusalem, Tel Aviv is secular and liberal. The economy is prospering, the nightlife is lively, and the café and beach scene is busy. The municipal authorities encourage creativity, education and social and economic prosperity.

Underpinning each of these aims is a municipal agenda to achieve the 11^th UN Sustainable Development Goal: Sustainable Cities and Communities. The City’s planning department aims to make Tel Aviv inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable through long term investment in local communities.

By adopting Smart City Principles, Tel Aviv’s municipality connects with its residents through technological advances. Residents have access to free Wi-Fi throughout the city, encouraging inhabitants to gain autonomy in managing and participating in internal municipal decisions. iView (the municipal GIS) enables residents, tourists and professionals to comment on the urban environment, fostering transparency, accessibility and active citizen engagement. Through DigiTel, a live app-based service, planning decisions can be observed and logged, present and future construction and renovation works are indicated as alerts, and citizens are offered information on local cultural events. That 60% of Tel Aviv’s residents are registered with the service is testament to the success of the municipality in changing the way residents engage with the urban environment.

As a Smart City, such strong civic involvement has the potential to transform the ways that heritage values and planning – too often seen as distant and unengaging – are communicated and experienced by residents.

While the ‘Smart London’ Plan[2] strives to engage citizens, enable growth and work with businesses, there is little mention of ways in which the Plan envisages communicating heritage values to residents through new technologies. Perhaps London needs to take a lesson from Tel Aviv’s successes to promote ways in which internet and mobile communication can transform conventional interaction with cultural heritage. By using smartphones to create a streamlined network, civic interaction with historical and environmental resources and the urban environment would be apparent. Rather than having apps and email notifications specific only to museums, shops, and locations, if London were to take a holistic approach, users (residents, industry professionals, academics and students) could post and share comments and reviews on the built environment. This would strengthen wider, inclusive and sustainable civic participation and appreciation of London’s rich cultural heritage, changing the way individuals interact with the built environment.

Stella Fox is a Heritage Consultant based in our London office. She recently completed a research project on the twentieth century evolution of Tel Aviv.