Is it quicker to build homes on large sites, or small?

Too slow, guys. Image: Getty.

The associate director of planning consultancy Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners explains why large new housing sites aren’t a silver bullet.

Most people now agree that we need to build significantly more homes than we currently do – and the government wants planning to think big in how it goes about achieving this objective.

With its “locally-led” garden towns and villages agenda, and last December’s consultation on proposed changes to the National Planning Policy Framework to encourage new settlements, local planning authorities and developers are being encouraged to look closely at bringing forward large-scale housing development projects.

On paper, this emphasis on large sites is useful: with just one site of several thousands of homes, a district can meet a significant proportion of its housing requirement. Moreover, their sheer size can stimulate the local economy and drive innovation as the site and infrastructure are developed.

However, large sites are not a silver bullet. Their scale and complexity mean that they take time to plan and require significant upfront capital investment. Furthermore, there is a need to be realistic about how quickly they can deliver new homes – such sites are not immune to the challenges and risks of the market.

Our latest research report, Start to Finish, analyses the lead-in times, planning period and delivery phases of housing sites. Here are our key findings.


Planning period

Before any homes can be built on-site, an outline or full planning application needs to be submitted and planning permission (followed by reserved matters approval for outline applications) has to be granted. A Section 106 obligation will generally need to be entered into. Pre-commencement conditions need to be discharged before any development start on-site. 

Our research shows that both the planning period (from application to decision), and the period of time between permission being granted and the first home being built, depends on the complexity of the site, which frequently correlates with its size.

And the larger the site, the longer the planning application determination period. Sites outside of London of between 100 and 499 units take, on average, 2.5 years – at least half the time required for sites of over 1,000 units – reflecting differing levels of site complexity.

By contrast, smaller sites take longer to deliver the first home after planning approval. This period of development takes just over 18 months for sites – outside of London – of under 500 units; but, perhaps surprisingly, this is significantly quicker on larger sites – in particular, on the largest 2,000+ dwelling sites, the time period from planning to first completion was under a year. This could be because larger sites may more often have larger housebuilders on board by the time an implementable permission is secured, thus be able to mobilise resources quicker.

Planning period by site size. Source: NLP analysis.

Housing delivery rates

It is widely recognised that build rates on sites are dictated by the number of sales outlets and market absorption rates. Self-evidently, large sites will frequently have more than one housebuilder building and selling homes. The larger the site, the greater the number of different housebuilders on-site and the faster the delivery rate. 

Based on our research, we found that, on average, sites of 100 to 1,000 units will typically deliver 60 units each year, while sites of 2,000 or more will deliver over 160 units per annum.

However, it is worth noting that while larger sites have a higher delivery rate due to the number of additional outlets, they take longer to plan and start on-site. There is also significant variation from the average: some sites can be quicker, others slower. And there are fluctuations from year to year.

Housing delivery by site size. Source: NLP analysis.

Our analysis shows that markets really do matter for housing delivery rates. Using estimates of land value with residential planning permissions at local authority level – as a proxy for market demand and economic strength – relatively stronger markets tend to have higher delivery rates.

This raises an important point about absorption rates: in stronger areas, housebuilders are able to build homes at a faster rate and sell them at the value they expect.

Housing delivery rates and market strength. Source: NLP analysis.

Where viable, housing sites with a larger proportion of affordable homes deliver more quickly. For both large and small-scale sites, developments with 40 per cent or more affordable housing have a build rate that is around 50 per cent higher, compared to developments with less than 10 per cent affordable housing.

The relationship between affordable housing provision and delivery rate is complex and rests on a variety of factors including viability and the level of grant or subsidy available to housing associations. On large sites, securing affordable housing “sales” can benefit housebuilder cash flow by providing financial certainty, which can be beneficial, particularly early on in a larger scale development.

However, it does demonstrate that – where viable – a tenure mix that extends beyond just housing for sale can help overcome the natural limitations associated with absorption rates. So the introduction of self-build and private rented properties might similarly increase rates of development.

Affordable housing provision and housing delivery. Source: NLP analysis.

If we are serious about achieving the Government’s target of one million homes built by 2020 – or indeed, deliver the 300,0000 per year that are needed – we need to recognise that it is about much more than just having a headline number of units in plan allocations or with planning permission. We need to understand trajectories of development: the length of time it takes for sites to come forward and the rate at which they deliver homes.

Every site is different, and there is a need for local authorities to understand the barriers and drivers of delivery in their area, seek to allocate appropriate housing sites in response and then closely monitor their progress.

Joe Sarling is associate director of planning consultancy Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners. This article was originally posted on the firm’s blog

Want more of this stuff? Follow CityMetric on Twitter or Facebook.

 
 
 
 

North central Melbourne is becoming a test bed for smart, integrated transport

A rainy Melbourne in 2014. Image: Getty.

Integrated transport has long been the holy grail of transport engineering. Now, a project set up north of Melbourne’s downtown aims to make it a reality.

Led by the School of Engineering at the University of Melbourne, the project will create a living laboratory for developing a highly integrated, smart, multimodal transport system. The goals are to make travel more efficient, safer, cleaner and more sustainable.

Integrated transport aims to combine various modes of travel to provide seamless door-to-door services. Reduced delays, increased safety and better health can all be achieved by sharing information between users, operators and network managers. This will optimise mobility and minimise costs for travellers.

The National Connected Multimodal Transport Test Bed includes arterial roads and local streets in an area of 4.5 square kilometres in Carlton, Fitzroy and Collingwood.

Bounded by Alexandra Parade and Victoria, Hoddle and Lygon streets, this busy inner-suburban area is a perfect location to test a new generation of connected transport systems. Our growing cities will need these systems to manage their increasing traffic.

How will the test bed work?

The test bed covers all modes of transport. Since April, it has been collecting data on vehicles, cyclists, public transport, pedestrians and traffic infrastructure, such as signals and parking. The area will be equipped with advanced sensors (for measuring emissions and noise levels) and communications infrastructure (such as wireless devices on vehicles and signals).

The test bed will collect data on all aspects of transport in the inner-suburban area covered by the project. Image: author provided.

The aim is to use all this data to allow the transport system to be more responsive to disruption and more user-focused.

This is a unique opportunity for key stakeholders to work together to build a range of core technologies for collecting, integrating and processing data. This data will be used to develop advanced information-based transport services.

The project has attracted strong support from government, industry and operators.

Government will benefit by having access to information on how an integrated transport system works. This can be used to develop policies and create business models, systems and technologies for integrated mobility options.

The test bed allows industry to create and test globally relevant solutions and products. Academics and research students at the University of Melbourne are working on cutting-edge experimental studies in collaboration with leading multinationals.

This will accelerate the deployment of this technology in the real world. It also creates enormous opportunities for participation in industry up-skilling, training and education.

What are the likely benefits?

Urban transport systems need to become more adaptable and better integrated to enhance mobility. Current systems have long suffered from being disjointed and mode-centric. They are also highly vulnerable to disruption. Public transport terminals can fail to provide seamless transfers and co-ordination between modes.

This project can help transport to break out of the traditional barriers between services. The knowledge gained can be used to provide users with an integrated and intelligent transport system.

It has been difficult, however, to trial new technologies in urban transport without strong involvement from key stakeholders. An environment and platform where travellers can experience the benefits in a real-world setting is needed. The test bed enables technologies to be adapted so vehicles and infrastructure can be more responsive to real-time demand and operational conditions.


Rapid advancements in sensing and communication technologies allow for a new generation of solutions to be developed. However, artificial environments and computer simulation models lack the realism to ensure new transport technologies can be properly designed and evaluated. The living lab provides this.

The test bed will allow governments and transport operators to share data using a common information platform. People and vehicles will be able to communicate with each other and the transport infrastructure to allow the whole system to operate more intelligently. The new active transport systems will lead to safety and health benefits.

The test bed allows impacts on safety in a connected environment to be investigated. Interactions between active transport modes such as walking and cycling with connected or autonomous vehicles can be examined to ensure safety is enhanced in complex urban environments. Researchers will study the effects of warning systems such as red light violation, pedestrian movements near crossings, and bus stops.

Low-carbon mobility solutions will also be evaluated to improve sustainability and cut transport emissions.

Environmental sensors combined with traffic-measurement devices will help researchers understand the effects of various types of vehicles and congestion levels. This includes the impacts of emerging disruptive technologies such as autonomous, on-demand, shared mobility systems.

A range of indoor and outdoor sensor networks, such as Wi-Fi, will be used to trial integrated public transport services at stations and terminals. The goal is to ensure seamless transfers between modes and optimised transit operations.The Conversation

Majid Sarvi is chair in transport engineering and the professor in transport for smart cities; Gary Liddle an enterprise professor, transport; and Russell G. Thompson, an associate professor in transport engineering at the University of Melbourne.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.