Thinking of a Masterplan?
Part V in a series of posts unpacking the proposed development off Ropewalk in Kingsbridge
The number of wrong turns on this most recent leg of the Kingsbridge masterplan journey presents an orienteering challenge in understanding how South Hams District Council (SHDC) ended up with so much egg on its masterplan face.
Beginning in 2016, the site area below was conceived as a whole and two sites (2 and 5) were allocated for community and affordable housing. Arriving at a point where one isolated site (area 2), detached both from the wider masterplan vision, and from its sister site, the Ropewalk Resource Centre (area 5 on the map), is an arrival point, of sorts, but very far from the intended destination.
The Ropewalk Resource Centre site (area 5) is flat, with existing road access and with trees `identified as being of poor quality’. Area 2 is steeply sloping with no existing road access (described in the masterplan as `challenging topography and access’ with an `existing covenant restricting access from Kingsway, so as not to impede school traffic’) and is partially flood lit by the school sports ground. Area 2 is also biodiverse scrubland and provides a habitat to slowworms (some already translocated), badgers, commuting / foraging bats, hedgehogs, breeding birds and has mature trees and hedging to its boundaries.
In the initial concept design stage, Area 5 was allocated with up to 18 affordable dwellings for shared ownership tenure; and area 2 with up to 22 dwellings as part of a Community Housing scheme, with parking allocation via a permit in Cattle Market car park.
The Skipton Masterplan Process
The twists and turns of the Kingsbridge process are complex. But the process itself is, of course, not without precedent and it’s by way of comparison that we might gain the best insight into the perplexing activity being visited on our community.
Skipton, a historic market town in the Aire Valley on the southern fringes of the Yorkshire Dales, is home to about 15,000 people, dubbed Britain’s happiest town in 2017, it is a popular tourist destination on the Leeds Liverpool Canal. Skipton falls within Craven District Council, an area with a population of about 53,600 and one of the top ten lowest population density councils in England (South Hams population stands at about 87,000 and SHDC falls within the top 20 for lowest population density).
Like South Hams (SHDC), Craven District Council (CDC) is ambitious for good jobs and affordable housing. And as with SHDC and Kingsbridge; Craven District Councillors have been looking at a development masterplan for the transformation of a large area in the centre of Skipton known as the Skipton Triangle. My own personal fondness for Skipton stems from a period working in the Lake District and a familiarity with some exceptional placemaking work carried out through the Arts Council funded Great Places scheme (more on that in future blog).
CDC’s ambition for enhancing the setting of the town’s heritage assets, creating high quality spaces and buildings, securing environmental improvements and improving the quality of public space is, in part, being realised following the York, North Yorkshire and East Riding Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) awarding Skipton’s Employment and Housing Growth project circa £5 million in 2017. It is this investment that is funding Skipton’s foray into a masterplan.
The £200k tender for a Multi-Disciplinary Team was designed to provide an `innovative and commercially deliverable masterplan for the future development of an area of West Skipton, referred to as the Skipton Station Triangle’ (and includes a 5.6ha plot surrounding the train station and a 1.95ha plot comprising the Cavendish Street Car Park and Skipton Bus Station).
For the North Yorks LEP, the masterplan and associated development
“… is part of a wider £4.6m Local Growth Fund contribution secured by the LEP for Skipton to support priority areas including the creation of successful and distinctive places and ensuring there is a well-connected local economy. It also matches the LEP’s vision for economic recovery from Covid-19, which promotes a greener, fairer, stronger economy with opportunities for innovation and change across the region”.
Council leader, Richard Foster, suggested
“… the £5 million should be seen as 'seed funding', and if handled right could see up to £40 million being invested in the area… adding that he believed the area of Skipton had been undervalued for a long time with just `large supermarkets dumped on it’”. Councillor Simon Myers described the project as "… a very exciting and far reaching project but it is very important that we have a masterplan and that money is properly spent".
The careful process of selecting a multidisciplinary team to deliver what’s essentially mainstream economic regeneration, with a side serving of environmental, social and cultural benefit, was supported by a competitive procurement exercise with procurement partner, Cirrus Purchasing. The brief specified upfront that five teams would be invited to submit bids following a pre-qualification round, focusing on previous experience and capability.
Through the process of developing the brief, and working with Cirrus on the process for tendering, CDC’s invitation to tender reached a wide and diverse audience of suppliers through various electronic tendering portals and other channels including architecture trade press. Over the period the competitive tender was open, the process generated widespread interest from architectural and planning and engineering practices across the UK, and the responses provided Craven District Councillors and its Communities with the opportunity to think together about the challenges facing Skipton and how best to create opportunities for post COVID regeneration and rejuvenation in a “deliverable, sustainable and environmentally caring way”.
This part of the masterplan process opened up the possibility for more expansive thinking about what to prioritise - the economic and housing drivers remained central but were rebalanced and shaped by the project team’s increasingly holistic ambition for good social, cultural and environmental outcomes. And although the proof will be in the pudding, it’s reasonable to speculate that a process of this nature will grow stakeholder confidence in the project’s potential and lay firm foundations for widespread stakeholder investment in its success. And these intangibles matter. The intangibles are what frequently trip development projects up. The intangibles, if overlooked, can end up costing alot of cash and alot of time. And if you’re reading this, chances are you already fully aware of this and understand, very well, how it applies in context.
Of the 40 Skipton masterplan bids received, five were shortlisted. The multidisciplinary contract was awarded to `world-leading’ practice, Allies and Morrison, supported by emerging architects McMullan Studio; leading engineers, Buro Happold, and property experts, Cushman and Wakefield.
Making Skipton `healthier and happier’ was central to the winning bid concept. Improving the town’s walkability, enhancing green spaces and building on Skipton’s strong community spirit are all areas for exploration in a “… grassroots consultation with local residents”.
For emerging practice, McMullan Studio
“The project chimes with the studio’s core aim of putting people at the centre of everything it designs – creating places that reflect the spirit of a community and improve its wellbeing, health and quality of life”.
Working together, Allies and Morrison and McMullan Studio, along with the contracted property experts and engineers, will deliver an ‘innovative and commercially-deliverable’ masterplan designed to make Skipton “the town of choice for those who want all the advantages of an historic town centre location, with great access to clean air and the open countryside”.
The upfront specification of a multidisciplinary team, and the commitment to investing in Cirrus, as the procurement partner, evidences a rigorous, creative and ambitious approach to procurement commensurate with a project of this scale. These decisions also communicate volumes about the Council’s confidence in managing the masterplan budget, the four suppliers in tandem and the bigger capital investment required to deliver the regeneration project in its entirety. And a process which delivers a team of four specialist companies - which includes a big and little sister architect combination of `world leading’ and emerging talent - selected on the basis of their capacity to collaborate effectively - bodes well for the buy in required from multiple stakeholders for a masterplan process, set in a sensitive heritage context, across Skipton’s town centre sites. In short, the chances are that competence and confidence are not in short supply in Skipton.
The Kingsbridge Masterplan Process
SHDC purchased the Ropewalk Resource Centre (part of area 3 on the map below) from Devon County Council, on the open market, at a cost of £483k - including £23k stamp duty - in early 2016 “… so that it could develop it, which it intends to do”.
(yes… you read that right; the County Council sold land to the District Council for affordable and community housing and in terms of public money for public goods it is this transaction - this money changing hands - as much as the masterplan process itself, that has significantly contributed to increasingly skewed priorities towards less good outcomes for Kingsbridge. It is worth taking a moment to reflect upon alternate realities - it is the case that Community Land Trusts have, on more than the odd occasion, succeeded in securing sites from Councils at a greatly reduced rate, or for a peppercorn sum (see the example of Glastonbury in previous blog).
Following the acquisition of the old resource centre on Ropewalk, SHDC’s Executive were ready to set the wheels in motion for “… a comprehensive masterplan for Kingsbridge Quay and environs (known as K2)…”. SHDC’s vision for the regeneration of the K2 site was
“… to create a vibrant and mixed use quarter for the business, living, leisure and commercial sector” all designed to drive “… forward growth in the town… [with] ambitious plans in line with… corporate objectives of affordable homes and economy”.
So far, so very similar to Skipton - and although the area for development is smaller, the aspiration for Kingsbridge was for `about 100 dwellings’ of which 40% would be allocated as affordable and community housing.
Additionally, SHDC had an eye on “improving its revenue portfolio, whilst providing a mix of affordable and open market dwellings, together with employment space”, in its public facing communications, the aspiration set out
Proposals include improved public realm around the harbour side and the adjacent town square. New links between the town square and Fore Street to create a more pedestrian-friendly zone. Potential development could include 100 new homes with 40% designated as affordable, plus opportunities for cafes and restaurants along the waterfront, a new pontoon bridge and increased activity on the water”.
SHDC Executive were confident that its masterplan would “… enhance the vitality and viability of the town for both the local population and as a visitor destination, in light of increasing pressure from nearby centres in the South Devon area”(the `pressure’ wasn’t detailed, but presumably refers to Salcombe spill over effect (where the average price of a house - albeit averages are fairly meaningless - is now in excess of £650k).
The invitation to tender for the `K2 Masterplanning’ was subsequently published in May 2016 and was estimated at £55k (although an earlier estimate set it at nearer £30k). However, by the time sign off by the Executive and Council was required, the masterplan contract value had increased to £76k, set aside in the Land and Development Earmarked Reserve. This newly increased sum included “a 10% contingency on the tender price to cover any additional work that may be required and/or identified during this process”.
The procurement exercise to cost the appointment of a lead consultant to produce the masterplan was undertaken in-house. The tender process ran for 28 days, from the 1st to 29th April in 2016 “… in accordance with the South Hams and West Devon’s joint Contract Procured Rules (2014)”. By mid June, Assets Lead, Chris Brook (now Director of Placemaking and Enterprise) had won Council approval
“… to appoint a Lead Consultant to develop and drive forward a comprehensive masterplan for the Kingsbridge Quay (K2) site… central to driving forward growth in the town” with “… ambitious plans in line with its corporate objectives of affordable homes and economy”.
From the seven submissions received (to Skipton’s 40), property consultants Montagu Evans, `specialists in advising clients with complex planning and development challenges’, were appointed. The required outputs for the contract included
Baseline constraints and opportunities
Stakeholder engagement and workshops (the engagement aspect of the brief required, as a minimum, 1.5 days of stakeholder engagement, including community engagement)
Concept design and financial constraints
Public consultation (a 2 day public exhibition)
Final appraisal and summary report reflecting all of the above
The tender brief makes clear the Lead Consultant is expected to contribute positively to SHDC’s vision and primary aims:
To enhance the lives and communities of the South Hams. Our success will come from our ambition to:
Work in partnership and build positive relationships.
Do more with less.
Ensure that local communities feel supported.
Break new ground nationally in the way we engage with local people to deliver services.
Be innovative.
With a priority on providing development
... that is future proofed, low energy usage and that creates a healthy building envelope.
In the published masterplan, the `Key Regeneration Aims’ were detailed as
Support the local community by providing housing, employment, car parking, leisure facilities and improve the public realm
Promote positive regeneration of the town centre and encourage visitors to stop in the town
Improve traffic management and access between the town centre and Market Square / Quayside
Additional objectives included
Enhance the character of Kingsbridge and its attractiveness to visitors, supporting the economic viability of the town centre;
Improve connectivity between the Quay and Fore Street;
Introduce new leisure activities on the Quay and waterfront;
Provide high quality, sustainable affordable housing to meet local community needs;
Enhance town centre car parking management and bus/taxi facilities;
Deliver infrastructure improvements; including quay wall repairs and improvements to the slipway.
Appointing Additional Sub Contractors
Members had previously been advised the Lead Consultant would have access to the multi-disciplinary team required to deliver the masterplan. South West firm LHC Design were appointed in June 2016 as sub contractors to Montagu Evans, to develop “… an overarching masterplan vision for the underused quayside, with a brief to reconnect the area to the town centre, and provide around new homes and new employment land”.
In practice, what this appears to mean is that there was no competitive process for the work that had the most influence on the masterplan ergo - the design. Presumably it was Montagu Evans together with the Head of Assets (as was his then job title) and, probably, other Officers who decided on LHC’s appointment. And, as a regional firm that has been awarded a fair number of contracts in the locale, presumably they were considered a good and safe pair of hands. And, ultimately, the managing of the contract, was down to Montagu Evans (with SHDC as the commissioning authority). This part - how the commissioning and contracting worked - isn’t entirely clear.
What’s perhaps most relevant, though, is what this looked like in the Skipton process. Firstly, design - not property consultancy - leads the masterplanning process. This is absolutely fundamental and the appointment of a property consultancy, Montagu Evans, speaks to economic growth as the driving priority. Of course you could aim for economic growth, led by design (what Skipton is shooting for) and that would be a choice that would still be likely to lead to a better outcome than what’s happened in Kingsbridge. So, Craven District Council’s ambition for the town was expressed in a competitive tender process. Social Value act not withstanding, for a contract of this size - when there is a relatively small pool of regional architects that could take on a complex masterplanning process, having this ambition as a fair wind behind the process would likely have had a positive impact on how invested people felt in a positive outcome. In practice, then, the lack of a competitive design tender process has short changed people, place and planet. Secondly, simply put, wide stakeholder consultation happens after the architects (and other contractors are appointed) and before design begins. What we have had is design first, consultation afterwards. There’s little need to labour the point about why we are where we are now.
Exeter based independent construction consultancy, Ravenslade, were also appointed as a sub-consultant to Montagu Evans to provide a cost option appraisal. They identified the development of the K2 site at Kingsbridge Quay as having … an overall value of £18m (although then council leader John Tucker referred to a figure of £20 to £25 million). This puts the masterplan budget at less than 0.5% of total project spend. Arguably, more could have been set aside for this fundamental part of the process. It’s reasonable to ask how this might have been different if SHDC had availed itself of expert procurement support upfront.
“As part of the commission, we provided a range of high level cost options developed in liaison with the design team and the commissioning authority South Hams District Council. Given the location of the proposed site it has specific site conditions and constraints, each being carefully considered to provide a robust cost appraisal to inform the development decisions”.
Budget Increase
The original approved budget of £76k was subsequently increased to £106k in March 2017 following the approval of a £30k reserve request “… to enable the project team to address additional pieces of work which had been raised by both Kingsbridge Town Council as well as local members”. This alternative concept option is detailed below.
In October 2017, in an update report to the executive on Stage 1 of the Kingsbridge Quayside Master Plan (focusing on areas 1, 2, 3 and 4 on section of the masterplan map), authored by Assets Lead Chris Brook (and coastal engineer, Dan Field); the post-process rationale for Stage I of the masterplan detailed the need for SHDC to
“… understand the potential for developing Kingsbridge Quayside, and surrounding parcels of land within its ownership, in terms of what would be practical and viable...”.
The report shared the findings of the public consultation which revealed, amongst other things, that there was
“… broad support for genuinely affordable homes and a desire from the Town Council to deliver these as a priority (Areas 3 & 4 of the masterplan map)” and the report flagged “The viability appraisal shows that Areas 3 & 4 return a loss and will therefore require cross subsidy either from the Area 2 development or alternative funding sources”, noting “The appraisal indicates that the scheme is most viable with the Council acting as the developer and therefore carrying the associated project risks, whilst retaining control. Lower risk options such as disposal or Joint Venture (JV) do not, at this time, generate a net financial surplus”.
The authors also flag that
“A planning application which would be the output from Stage 2 would need to include Areas 1, 2, 3 & 4 to ensure that the 40% affordable homes criteria is met site wide. However, it is proposed to submit a hybrid application including detailed design for Area 4 and possibly Area 3, so as to move forward the community housing and affordable elements as a priority”.
To recap, the objective, at this point, was to achieve approximately 40 new affordable homes across two sites, including a `community housing scheme built in partnership with the local community’ as an integrated part of a whole scheme (and, as has been flagged elsewhere within this overview, the public consultation showed there was “Strong agreement that the scheme should prioritise provision of affordable housing for the local community” with “Some recognition that development of Kingsbridge quayside is needed to support costs of improvements to public realm and provision of affordable housing”).
The additional spend of £30k over and above the original masterplan contract fee of £76k allowed for
“an alternative concept layout which was developed in consultation with the wider project team following a preliminary analysis of the consultation results. This alternative option begins to responds to the community request to bring forward a smaller scale of development on the Quayside, retained affordable housing and reduced parking impact”.
The alternative concept layouts for the two Ropewalk sites (areas 3 and 4) are shown below:
This alternative concept comprised of
A mix of 13 private and 5 affordable homes on the ropewalk site (Area 3)
A community housing scheme built in partnership with the local community (Area 4) comprising of 22 dwellings.
Approximately 28 new residential apartments with allocated parking at the Southern end of the Quay (Area 2) not shown above and not part of the affordable or community led schemes.
The report recommended proceeding to Stage 2 “to improve financial viability through more detailed design work, determine the best project delivery and funding options and secure planning approvals”, funded from SHDC’s Capital Programme Reserve for
“… market testing, design and submission of a hybrid planning application” at an estimated cost of “… approximately £190k” for a 12 month contract, with a further recommendation to “… roughly apportion half of this cost to project works associated with Area 3 & 4”.
In essence, the Stage 2 contract was designed to cover:
Market testing and refinement of business model.
Lead consultant design work across all four master plan areas (Areas 1 to 4).
Additional consultant input; Cost Consultant, Landscape and Visual, ecology, transport and highways across all four master plan areas (Areas 1 to 4).
Planning fees, including outline planning and resolution of any reserved matters.
The report details the budget spend for Stage 1 and Stage 2 would be in the region of £307k. To recap, SHDC had previously spent £483k, including 23k stamp duty, to purchase the Rope Walk site. Capital project costs were estimated to be in the region of £27m (Option 1) and £21m (Option 2) respectively (the return on investment for the larger scheme was estimated at 6.5% and 5.7% for the reduced scale scheme with neither scheme currently viable at that threshold in light of delivery risks and both options necessitate borrowing by SHDC).
Regarding the community housing, the report also recommends
“… there is an opportunity to submit a business case to support the delivery of the community housing identified within Area 4, from the community housing fund”… However, it’s also flagged that “… it has been recognised through the masterplan that any planning application should include all areas proposed for development, not just Area 3 or 4” and “If Area 3 or 4 is taken forward in isolation, then the affordable housing delivery will be dramatically reduced, as each area would need to become viable in isolation, necessitating open market homes to form part of the mix” (the report also recaps `Areas 3 & 4 are loss making and will require cross subsidy from open market development in Area 2’).
The report did not recap the intention of the Community Housing fund. Members were, however, further reminded of the obligations under the joint local plan”
“The Council must now decide if it wishes to comply with current national and local housing policy for this allocated site, by moving it forward. Failure to do so will result in a lack of affordable housing delivery in Kingsbridge, and potentially a wider housing land supply planning risk”.
Officers recommended that the approved Stage 2 would “enable the masterplan to be turned into detailed designs and allow the key public concerns to be addressed in further detail”. The key output from Stage 2 would be a planning application”.
Stage 2 was broken down in to Stages A and B. Stage A proposed discussions with two Housing Associations to review affordable housing demand and options and canvassing feedback on demand / residual values from six developers / Housing Associations to inform the business plan. Stage 2B was estimated at £170k, with approximately half of this budget relating to areas 3 and 4 for affordable housing, and would require a new invitation to tender.
To recap, by this point - October 2017 - SHDC had spent
£483k (after purchase costs) on acquiring the Rope Walk Resource Centre site (and an as yet unknown sum on the other Ropewalk site, also acquired from Devon County Council).
£107k on completing Stage 1 (over an agreed budget of £76k inc 10% contingency)
A further proposal for between £170 and £200k for Stage 2 was discussed. The additional proposed spend on Stage 2 of the masterplan process was part approved by full Council for delivery in two phases - Stages 2A and 2B - with the delivery of community housing (2A) identified for Area 4 as a priority and funded, at an additional cost of £30,000. The approval included a recommendation to fund approximately £80,000 for Stage 2B, from the Capital Programme Earmarked Reserves.
The total masterplan spend is therefore estimated at £217k (this is £17k more than the Skipton masterplan process - the Kingsbridge site is arguably equally as complex, but much smaller overall).
Where Are We Now?
There’s actually no quick or easy answer to this question and several more blogs are planned to uncover some of the pertinent detail. However, in summary, as most of the intended audience for these posts will be aware, there is no affordable or community housing scheme coming forwards for Site 3 at this time. However, in the intervening period, there has been a proposal for a Premier Inn hotel on that site. And, latterly, when a planning application for site 4 appeared in 2019, it was an entirely different scheme to the outline detailed in the masterplan process (which had at least been seen by the town’s council and residents). Neither scheme, in current form, are supported by the Town Council. And, in the reporting back of a recent meeting with SHDC’s senior leadership team about the application for Site 4, it appears Officers were unwilling to answer any questions about the masterplan approach to look at both sites together, or, infact, to discuss their intentions for the Ropewalk Resource site at all.
Further, the pre-app and planning costs for the application that has come forwards for Site 4 are circa £115k (as per an FOI request) and it appears this sum - more than half of the total masterplan budget - has, in part, been funded through the Homes England CH fund, which was broadly intended for the purpose of community-led housing. This appears to have happened on the premise that the monies (any profit that can be `recycled’) will be invested in future schemes, or if the money is lost, the money will be returned to the CH pot through the sale of a property - or properties - in Leechwell Lane in Totnes. Again, interms of what’s in the public domain, it’s about as clear as mud, but this appears to be the jist of it.
Additionally, the `Placemaking’ team at South Hams District Council, which seems to direct the Community Housing team in practice if not in name, are also focused - possibly above all else - on securing a site to trial “volumetric modular construction…”. This is the lynchpin in a plan for “… utilising modern energy efficient methods of construction” which seeks to “… explore the concepts of the Council as a developer and landlord” by starting an LHC (or Wholly Owned Company), with the intention of becoming a developer of profitable affordable housing to “deliver 7,000 high quality, sustainable and affordable housing during the lifetime of the plan across South Hams and West Devon … through a cost efficient standardised model”. This plan may also hinge on investing in “… affordable housing with and without Joint Venture (JV) partners”. The broad brush strokes of this plan, which emerged circa late 2017 / early 2018 are detailed in SHDC’s draft housing strategy (and elsewhere in the public domain) and will be out to public consultation after 7th December if approved at Council. The plan is responsive to, and designed to dovetail with, Government’s affordable housing grants scheme and its investment, to the tune of £30m in modern methods of construction. What should be noted, above all else, is that not all MMCs are equal and volumetric construction looks far from suitable for this site. More on that in future posts.
It becomes understandable, then, through a deeper level of probing, that the driving level of desperation to achieve something - anything - on this one difficult site supersedes all reason. Having something to show for the copious amounts of time, energy and cash invested in the process to date is one factor; and then there’s also the matter of proving the (JV?) `standardised’, `volumetric modular construction’ model ahead of rollout. In practice this means the town council and residents are being put under pressure to endorse and accept a really ill conceived scheme that simply doesn’t look fit for purpose. That a lack of competence is in evidence at a micro and macro level throughout this process seems to matter not one jot. That future residents of this scheme may end up in homes that potentially unsuitable, ergo a maintenance and, ultimately, replacement liability for the Council down the line, seems an unidentified and un(der)explored risk. That the social value, wider environmental consideration and the cultural heritage assets of the town and the wider AONB are being overlooked, exploited or are, infact, completely missing in this picture points to driving growth through the visitor economy as the real and primary focus of both the masterplan and the development of a site identified for affordable housing.
At a time of climate crisis, species collapse involving extreme loss of biodiversity and in the face of a rising tide of poverty, what we need are participatory strategies that foster resilience and create balance. What we need are opportunities to grow trust, to be in meaningful relationship and to find space to explore innovative solutions to seemingly intractable problems. Instead what we’re getting fed, in the form of this little plate of horrors, is a fast food diet of slipshod, wasteful schemes that make a show of healthy goodness, but, on closer inspection, when you get to the ingredients list, the sugar, salt and fat ratios are way out of whack. And, infact, all we’ve got here, is an indigestible recipe for collateral damage further down the line.
To be continued…
[1] for clarity and disclosure’s sake, the author lives on the boundary of area 2 of the second map