The value of housing design and layout

More documents

Recommendations

Info

therefore vary greatly from scheme to scheme. Their inclusion in cost measurement would not therefore facilitate a like-for-like comparison to be made between schemes. The residual sum measured in this research is intended to represent both the commercial value to the developer of the site and also some of the social value since, without it, the developer could not afford to provide any loss-making social amenity buildings. It must be noted here that, given the way the development market works, some of the residual value measured in this report would be shared with the landowner. Exactly how much depends not only on what proportion of the residual sum is used to provide social housing and other section 106 buildings and works, what is needed in the form of central company overheads, but also on the developer’s negotiating position. This will be determined by factors such as the degree of competition for the site from other developers and the form of contract that the developer enters into with the landowner. No attempt was made to assess how much of the residual would end up in the pockets of the landowner rather than the developer. The methodology was designed to compare each site on a like-for-like basis so all valuations were made at a single point in time (March 2002) and as if all units were being sold on the same (exemplar) site in each location. The measurement of land area was also standardised. A simple, step-by-step guide to the methodology used is contained in Appendix 4. Further details of this methodology are given below. 3.2 Selection of case studies METHODOLOGY This research used case studies of real development schemes wherever possible to avoid being unduly theoretical. The case studies in this research were selected on the basis that they represented a range of design and layout principles. Four different locations were selected, all of which contained examples of schemes that followed the urban design principles in PPG3 or innovative housing developments. Although initially a variety of locations across the country was identified for study, it was decided that it would be difficult to identify any differences in value that were due to regional externalities and regional market differences rather than the issue of design. It was therefore decided that all locations should be in the South-East to eliminate any differences attributable to variations in regional house markets and regional economic considerations. The sites selected were all on the edge of towns or district centres and all the sites were suburban in nature. They were Surbiton in outer south-west London, Bishop’s Stortford in East Hertfordshire, Chelmsford in Essex and Aylesbury in Buckinghamshire. All of the development schemes selected were examples of mainstream, mass house building of a good build standard. In each location, two schemes with different types of design and layout were selected. One was selected on the basis that it was largely PPG3-compliant and an example of good design practice. (Subsequently, on careful T H E V A L U E O F H O U S I N G D E S I G N A N D L A Y O U T 27
28 METHODOLOGY measurement, some of these schemes turned out not to be PPG3-compliant on the strict measure of minimum density.) The best practice sites were termed the ‘exemplar’ site in each case. The other site in each location was selected on the basis that it was a typical example of a standard design and layout type in that location. These sites were termed the ‘conventional’ site in each case. The following criteria, established in By design, the DTLR/CABE companion guide to PPG1, were used to select the exemplary schemes. ■ Character — a place with its own identity ■ Continuity and enclosure — a place where private and public spaces are easily distinguished ■ Quality of the public realm — a place with attractive and successful outdoor areas ■ Ease of movement — a place that is easy to get to and move through ■ Legibility — a place that has a clear image and is easy to understand ■ Adaptability — a place that can change easily ■ Diversity — a place with variety and choice Schemes that broadly conformed to these characteristics were selected as the ‘exemplar’ schemes. The conventional schemes were selected on the basis of their proximity to the exemplar site and that they represented a good example of what could otherwise have feasibly been built on the exemplar site. The sites were chosen on the basis of no other characteristics than that they represented nearby conventional residential schemes of a decent quality, likely to appeal to broadly the same market sector (in terms of price) as the exemplar scheme. A major problem in finding suitable case studies was the reluctance of developers to participate in the study. To form comparators for the four exemplar schemes, suitable ‘conventional’ schemes were identified in each case but two of their developers later refused to participate in the study. Two hypothetical, standard development schemes were created and costed in the two locations that were left without ‘conventional’ sites. There were several reasons for developers’ unwillingness to participate, the main one being confidentiality. There was also a fear of being held up as an example of bad design. The ‘conventional’ sites are put forward as reasonable examples of conventional development with standardised layout practices. Their only shared characteristic is that, broadly, they are either not PPG3-compliant to the same extent as the exemplars or that they do not exhibit the innovative or best practice design principles, set out in the methodology above, to the same extent as the exemplar examples. It is also worth noting that in the areas studied there was an increasing scarcity of non-PPG3 compliant, standard sites to act as conventional examples. Development, in the South-East and other southern parts of the country at least, is increasingly characterised by PPG3-type design principles. T H E V A L U E O F H O U S I N G D E S I G N A N D L A Y O U T
Page 1 and 2: the value of housing design and lay
Page 3 and 4: CABE, the Commission for Architectu
Page 6: Contents CONTENTS Executive summary
Page 9 and 10: 8 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Executive summa
Page 11 and 12: 10 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY balance to be
Page 13 and 14: 1.0 12 INTRODUCTION Introduction Th
Page 15 and 16: 14 INTRODUCTION It appears likely t
Page 17 and 18: 2.0 16 ADDRESSING THE GAPS Addressi
Page 19 and 20: 18 ADDRESSING THE GAPS marketabilit
Page 21 and 22: 20 ADDRESSING THE GAPS urban land r
Page 23 and 24: 22 ADDRESSING THE GAPS local commun
Page 25 and 26: 24 ADDRESSING THE GAPS operation of
Page 27: 3.0 26 METHODOLOGY Methodology 3.1
Page 31 and 32: 30 METHODOLOGY 3.4 Measuring and qu
Page 33 and 34: 32 METHODOLOGY otherwise) of design
Page 36 and 37: RESEARCH RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Res
Page 38 and 39: RESEARCH RESULTS AND DISCUSSION dev
Page 40 and 41: It is interesting to note that, alt
Page 42 and 43: Generally speaking, a bigger unit w
Page 44: RESEARCH RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Sch
Page 47 and 48: 5.0 46 CONCLUSIONS Conclusions This
Page 49 and 50: 48 CONCLUSIONS While it would appea
Page 51 and 52: a1.0 50 APPENDIX 1 Literature revie
Page 54 and 55: APPENDIX 2 Appendix 2.0 Cost analys
Page 56 and 57: COST ANALYSIS BY DAVIS LANGDON & EV
Page 64: COST ANALYSIS BY DAVIS LANGDON & EV
Page 67 and 68: Site A 66 APPENDIX 3 Location Surbi
Page 69 and 70: Site B APPENDIX 3 Location Surbiton
Page 71 and 72: Site C APPENDIX 3 Location Bishop
Page 73 and 74: Site D APPENDIX 3 Location Bishop
Page 75 and 76: Site E APPENDIX 3 Location Chelmsfo
Page 77 and 78: Site F APPENDIX 3 Location Chelmsfo
Page 79 and 80:
Site G APPENDIX 3 Location Aylesbur
Page 81 and 82:
Site H APPENDIX 3 Location Aylesbur
Page 84 and 85:
APPENDIX 4 Appendix 4.0 Step-by-ste
Page 86 and 87:
APPENDIX 5 Appendix 5.0 Illustrativ
Page 88 and 89:
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Acknowledgements
Page 90:
the value of housing design and lay
show all

The value of housing design and layout

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?