Stakeholders in the Development Process

The section above has focused on the different stages of the sustainable development process but as was highlighted in the initial introduction to this chapter there are many ways in which a development process can be considered. In this section a more ‘agency’

approach will be used to look at the main actors in the development process and how they can influence the outcome of the end result. The Figure 3.2 below provides a visual indication of the actors that are typically involved in the development process.

Figure 3.2 – The actors normally involved in the development process (Adams & Watkins, 2014)

As can be seen from the diagram there are four main actors involved in the development process which includes developers, landowners, politicians/communities/interest groups and banks/investors. Each of these will now be considered in turn to gain an understanding about what role they play and how they influence the process.

Developers

Developer interests are represented in Figure 3.2 as containing four distinct types. This includes the land developer that is involved at a strategic level and will often have full ownership of the land that is then divided into different plots and sold on to other developers who are called parcel developers. The third typology is the infrastructure provider who deals with the provision of all major infrastructure on the site and can either be a public or private organisation or a mixture of both. The last type of developer is the building contractor that

actually builds the development. In England it is quite common for all of these roles to be covered by a single private organisation such as a volume house builder as had been discussed previously.

In England there is a continuous discussion about the provision of housing and disagreement about why housing can not be delivered more quickly and efficiently. The planning system is an obvious target in this discussion but the developers play a significant role in this issue as well. As has been highlighted above, the volume house builders represent the majority of housing output in England (Wellings, 2001) and when demand rises they tend to increase price rather than output (Adams et al, 2009). This would indicate that even if further land were designated for residential use such a strategy would have minimal impact on this issue.

In addition to this, despite many policy initiatives to encourage mixed use development proposals, the developer sector has remained traditional in its approach and in most cases has resisted the change towards creating more mixed use environments (Adams & Watkins, 2014). There are exceptions to this and some development companies now specialise in town centre mixed use schemes but this is the exception rather than the rule.

This creates a development sector that is rigid and resistant to change. Where different types of developers remain in their silos and refrain from venturing into new territory.

Developers remain a very important part of creating sustainable places and it is important that their role be renovated into something that is more proactive and that engages in the long term vision of place creation.

Landowners

It might be easy to assume, that considering most of the developed world uses a planning system of some form, the role of the landowner would be less influential with regard to regeneration proposals. The landowner remains an important stakeholder however because of the power they can wield over the progress of projects. In some situations, the local government or even national government can use compulsory purchase to eliminate the problem of landowners holding the process to ransom (See Hamburg Case Study). This, however, is very unusual in England which means that landowners in England still play an important role in how a development process evolves.

Landowners can be categorised into two distinct groups which includes active and passive owners. The active group will normally have a strong interest in the development proposals coming forward and try to enter into a joint agreement with either other landowners or a public authority. The passive owners will normally resist the development proposal and try to hold on to their land at the expense of progress for the process. Adams et al. (2002) suggest that while passive landowners are in the minority they still have the ability to hinder progress substantially.

Landowners therefore have an important role to play in the sustainable development process and it will be important to explore how these actors can be brought onside to ensure a smoother process for large scale urban regeneration.

Politicians, communities and interest groups

Planning is inherently connected to the political sphere and as such can be influenced either by politicians themselves or the steering groups that they set up to advise them. Other groups can also influence the process such as interest groups, community groups and pressure groups. This shows the importance of the planning system as a process where

people can express their opinions openly which links closely with the theory of collaborative planning (discussed in more detail in the following chapter).

Despite the premise that collaborate planning is transparent and provides a level playing field for planning discussions, Pennington (2000) highlights that there are four different groups that have taken advantage of the current system. These include the housebuilding lobby, the agricultural lobby, the local environmental lobby and the professions involved in the development process more widely. Pennington suggests that these lobby groups have been able to adapt to the system and influence it where and when possible while other groups ‘suffer in silence’.

Local politicians tend to guard their decision rights carefully and do not always agree with the technical recommendation given to them by the planning professional who assesses the proposal. Indeed, there is a stronger emphasis placed on gaining short-term electoral advantage rather than purely making a decision about whether the proposal will be beneficial for the wider community.

This creates a system which is once again influenced by individuals and organisations acting in their own interest rather than considering the whole situation.

Banks and investors

The level of money and finance flowing into the development industry is not equal over time and space. There are moments when there is very little and then a sudden rush in a particular location. This is partly why the property industry is prone to the boom and bust scenario. To avoid this danger money lenders tend to focus their investments in locations they know well and where they perceive a lower degree of risk. This has the consequence

places having none (Guy & Henneberry, 2000). Breaking this pattern is difficult but could be considered a key objective of the planning system if we are to achieve a more uniform level of development across the country.

This aversion to risk is understandable but like the actions of developers, landowners and politicians does nothing to help achieve places that are interesting, vibrant and enjoyable to live in. In fact, in a large part the decision making processes that all of these stakeholders take are focused on the self interest of those individuals or organisations. This is clearly not a way in which credible sustainable urban regeneration can be produced. So is there another way?