Meeting the Housing Challenge-ADAM & Bidwells report 2025-FINAL_spreads by ADAM Architecture

Meeting the Housing Challenge

How legacy development principles can help deliver the Government’s housing targets and make better places

Meeting the Housing Challenge

Foreword

We need to find new ways to diversify both the supply side and the approach to the creation of new housing in Britain if we are to ensure that our current housing crisis is met in a positive way. At the time of writing, the Government’s approach is still emerging, but we believe that they rightly want to focus on the delivery of good quality new homes and good quality new urban places. As we all know to our cost, bad quality homes and bad quality places leave a profoundly toxic legacy for future generations.

Over the past twenty-five years ADAM Architecture has been one of a small number of practices that have pioneered new ways of working collaboratively

Hugh Petter RIBA, MRIAI, FRSA Director, ADAM Architecture

with landowners, developers and communities, remaining engaged through each stage of work, to produce better new places. This approach has become known as ‘legacy’ development. These schemes are well tailored to local need, beautiful and enduring, and have the necessary infrastructure and mix of uses to enable residents not just to live in a low carbon home, but in a place that also encourages a healthier, happier low carbon lifestyle. Bidwells are our long-term partners on some of these projects. Our joint motivation in this report is to unpack the principles behind what is meant by legacy development at different scales, and to explore the relative merits of this approach compared with schemes of similar size, built in the same towns at the same time in different parts of the country by one or more of the big plc housebuilders.

Legacy development, pioneered by His Majesty The King when He was Duke of Cornwall, is becoming ever more popular as its social, environmental and long-term economic benefits become better known and better understood. As we say in the body of the report, there is of course a good deal more to do, but we hope that the information we set out here will be a useful addition to the body of objective knowledge now available, helping landowners, developers and their advisors to make more informed decisions.

As the government accelerates efforts to address the housing crisis, it is vital that we do not repeat the mistakes of the past. Building more homes must not come at the expense of quality, character, and community. The ambition to increase housing supply should be matched by a commitment to creating places that are not only functional but also beautiful, sustainable, and enduring.

This research sets out to demonstrate that high-quality development is achievable across a range of site sizes and contexts. Central to this is the concept of Legacy Development—a framework for delivering places that offer

Mark Buddle

BA (Hons), MSc, MRTPI Partner, Head of Land & Development at Bidwells

long-term social, environmental, and economic value. At the heart of this approach is the Legacy Toolkit: a flexible set of principles, design elements, and delivery strategies that can be tailored to suit the scale, context, and aspirations of each site.

The toolkit is not prescriptive; rather, it offers a menu of components that developers and landowners can draw from to create distinctive, characterful places. Whether applied in full or in part through a ‘Legacy Lite’ approach, the toolkit ensures that even smaller or more constrained developments can achieve meaningful quality and lasting impact.

Bidwells, in collaboration with ADAM Architecture, is proud to support this work. We believe that by working closely with landowners and developers, we can unlock the potential of sites across the country and deliver the homes we need—without compromising on the quality our communities deserve.

Together, we can build not just more homes, but better places to live—places that leave a legacy.

Executive summary

• Legacy development1 offers a value premium of between 9% and 20% compared with conventional developments across three of the four case study sites, demonstrating compelling financial returns as well as social benefits.

• The eight components of legacy development provide a toolkit approach, enabling landowners to select appropriate elements that enhance development while maintaining viability, based on specific site contexts.

• Walkability assessment using PLACE LOGIC (placelogic.org.uk) shows legacy sites consistently outperform non-legacy counterparts on the 20-minute neighbourhood index, scoring between 7.5-8.7 versus 5.4-7.5 for conventional developments.

• Legacy developments attract customers drawn to social infrastructure, accessibility to green spaces and, increasingly, energy and water efficiency features - attributes that appeal to those who might otherwise prefer traditional housing.

• Partnerships based on shared vision and agreed outcomes are pivotal for successful legacy development, with landowners typically aligning with private developers who can commit to longer-term strategic visions.

• Infrastructure costs on large legacy sites can be as much as double the per-dwelling cost of smaller counterparts, requiring patient capital, with current on-site financing costs between 8.5% to 14%.

• Although accepted, it is worth reiterating that creating valuable, sustainable communities requires sustaining strategic focus through early phases to establish quality and placemaking - a key principle expressed by industry experts.

• Strong design codes that are backed by robust legal frameworks that allow ongoing oversight, throughout multiple development phases, are fundamental to maintaining quality and delivering on the legacy vision.

• Engagement with civic partners through regular meetings builds trust and can streamline approval processes, reducing planning appeals and development risk.

• There are barriers related to skills and expertise capacity throughout the sector regarding delivery of legacy development.

• Limitations and challenges to the report are:

- Data limitations: The analysis is based on a relatively small sample of sites, with data limited to a relatively short time-frame, necessitating more long-term datasets.

- Cost analysis: Further work is needed to address limitations around cost data to enable landowners and developers to make fully informed choices.

1 Legacy is a set of principles that guides better development. Stewardship is guided by many of these principles and aims to build upon these. The Stewardship Initiative is seeking a recognised kitemark to aid the planning process and other elements of development, visit: stewardship-initiative.com.

Introduction

Legacy development involves a landowner’s long-term interest in the development of land, with more involvement and control over the design of the scheme than might be within the controls of the planning process.

The key motivations of legacy development include higher quality design of attractive homes which offer better long-term financial returns; a development with better placemaking and social outcomes more in tune with local need; a more responsible approach towards protecting and enhancing the environment, or ideally a combination of some or all of these. Stewardship does this through effective land management, considered design and development, and carefully targeted investment.

Gail Mayhew, Smart Growth Associates and The Stewardship Initiative:

“The Stewardship Initiative is about bringing change in the land and property sector to deliver better, more sustainable and affordable places through supporting innovative thinking, best practice and capacity building. Legacy development aligns the landowner and developer with many of the same principles.”

The usual pattern of development in the UK today has been honed by many decades of increasingly heavy and disparate regulation that has seen planning delays and financial risk soar with the result that the number of small and medium sized developers has been squeezed down to unprecedentedly low levels.

The Government has announced (Dec 2024) an ambitious target of delivering 1.5 million homes within this parliament. Such delivery targets demand a greater volume of actors within the housing construction market. Today, about 50% of all housing delivery is provided by the ten largest housebuilders. 1.5 million new homes, however, will require volume housebuilders, small and medium-sized enterprise (SME) developers, charities and landowners. Smaller sites tend to receive planning more quickly, with fewer appeals and lower upfront infrastructure cost. They have a major part to play in the housing delivery.

In 2020 two reports, Cost & Value, and Building in Beauty were commissioned by the Conservative Government’s Building Better Building Beautiful Commission. Poundbury in Dorset was benchmarked against several other development models in different parts of the

UK and found to have performed significantly better across a range of indices.

Other schemes, some of which are analysed within this report, such as Nansledan in Cornwall, Park View in Oxfordshire, Accordia in Cambridge and Fairford Leys in Aylesbury aspire to and are delivering legacy development.

Should such schemes be seen as the blueprint for better new development in all instances? Can a more enabling approach still produce better Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) outcomes?

This report seeks to set out the attributes of legacy development, assessing its impact, and asking what advice can be sought to establish whether a vision, inspired by one or more of the key principles, can produce the desired outcome of the landowner in question.

The report first touches upon previous research produced by the industry on legacy development, before exploring fair value, a measure of what an asset would sell for on the open market, given a buyer and seller are able to agree a price with no time pressure. Chapter 2 outlines the methodology and provides case studies and results from an in-depth economic value analysis.

Economic value is only one element of legacy development and Chapter 3 builds upon this.

The components of legacy development are explored with the aim of supporting interested landowners with a choicebased toolkit, and the research examines one element of the toolkit, accessibility and amenity, through a PLACE LOGIC (placelogic.org.uk) walkability analysis. The chapter finishes on an exploration of legacy typologies.

Views and input from the wider industry proved critical and was gained through two workshops. The purpose of these was to move beyond questions of value, and explore how to build better and open up legacy development to a wider audience of landowners. The discussion informs Chapter 4 most particularly.

It is hoped that the outputs from this report will encourage landowners and developers. In parallel, innovative legal

agreements are required to help fuse the vision of the landowner with the commercial acumen of the developer. Farrer & Co have started the process with their Common Aspiration Contract, but there is no silver bullet and each site and each team will have its own challenges.

Finally, it should be noted that our comparison sites have been chosen to compare the change in economic value, thereby enabling us to measure the relative value of legacy developments to the wider market. The report is not seeking to comment on the quality of the comparison sites and the investors/developers involved with them.

A key part of the strategy to come close to meeting the Government’s housing target is to encourage more landowners to bring forward their sites and to encourage more SME developers back in to the market.

Chapter 1: Review of existing evidence

As outlined in the introduction, the delivery of appropriate housing in the right places that enhances the life of the residents as well as delivering suitable returns, both financial and for the community, is a topic of extensive attention, policy discussion and research.

On a purely quantitative measure of value previous reports point to an uplift anywhere in the region of 15%2 for legacy to 25%3 for upfront placemaking with services and amenities. Additional costs according to the same research can be between 18% and 30%.

The range within our own analysis of legacy versus non-legacy site comparisons demonstrates value premium on three of the four case study sites of between 9% and 20%. One of our legacy sites, Derwenthorpe, underperforms its comparator by 26%, although by design, the level of social housing

and shared ownership on the development, plus a short data time period, skew the results.

The published research, some of which is referenced at the end of this report, tackles the question of legacy through a combination of quantitative, qualitative, and hypothetical approaches. Each point to significant upsides, such as value premium, sales rates, higher quality product, stakeholder alignment and collaboration, as well as economic multipliers through localised employment.

On the flipside, however, they outline the challenges, including upfront infrastructure costs and the uneven responsibility of those costs, as well as

the need for patient capital, and the call on time and resources for placemaking, use of public money and/ or land, slow and costly planning, and tax treatments.

The body of work points towards multiple recommendations through policy and community engagement. Most recently the King’s Foundation 2024 annual report calls for the creation of regional building hubs to facilitate collaboration, better sharing of resources and skills, improved community engagement, an enhanced circular economy, sustainable development, and SME and supply chain support for the construction industry.

All agree that the best practice evidence base and data availability need improvement.

2Analysis of case studies demonstrates 15% is a reasonable expectation and this value premium is established from the start of the project and is maintained throughout.

3Hypothetical model: The basic infrastructure spend is the minimum required spend per unit for site preparation works, S106 and CIL. It is assumed that 40% of this is spent in the first two years, then 15% at each fifth of the development built out.

Chapter 2: Creating fair value

The real estate industry often refers to fair value, a measure of what an asset would sell for on the open market, given a buyer and seller are able to agree a price with no time pressure. It is, however, a narrow definition. In its widest sense, fair value incorporates a much broader societal and environmental benefit and creates financial return.

Chapter 2 looks first at value in the traditional sense across our case study sites before evaluating the wider aspects of legacy using the PLACE LOGIC tool that analysed each case study using advanced geo-spatial analysis to assess accessibility, (placelogic.org.uk).

James Wilson, Group Managing Director Davidsons Homes:

“We build 700 to 800 houses a year in the Midlands. Based on strategic land, based on legacy, based on big interest in house design and based on looking at something and feeling pleased that you built it. We want to make a profit as well and compete pound for every acre of land, so whatever we do has to be worth the same rate per acre as anybody else.”

2.1 Value premium

Using data methodology to explore value premium

As stated earlier in the report, previous work undertaken across the industry points to a value premium in the region of 15% to 25% for upfront placemaking with services and amenities on legacy projects.

The evidence base is small, and historic work outlines a need for more long-term datasets. To help build knowledge around pure financial return, analysis for this report used the Dataloft by PriceHubble sales series focused on sales values for a sample of eight schemes, incorporating four legacy sites and an appropriate competing plc housebuilder development. The sites were chosen from a series of time frames within the last decade and with a broad geographic spread, to remove localised policy and market condition influences. The data boundary was to the boundary of the sites themselves.

The location of each site can be seen on the map and the table opposite provides a summary of the dataset (to the end of 2023).

As with any research on a relatively small sample there is a risk of ‘noisy’ data that either does not have the timeline or the volume to smooth the outliers. To mitigate this, three further treatments of the data were taken. Both new and resale values were included, and the data was averaged and indexed over a three-year time frame to accommodate the small number of sales and to smooth or reduce the impact of larger shifts in values. The data did not run to the end of 2024 and so full year data to end of 2023 was included.

Lastly, to further increase the rigour of the analysis and remove contributing factors to value

such as the density and mix of unit sizes on the sites, the data interrogation focused on sales data on a per square foot basis.

On this basis, the legacy sites outperform on value terms alone across three of the four sets of comparable sites with a range of 9% to 20% premium. The exception is Derwenthorpe, where the legacy site underperforms by 26%, although by design, the level of social housing and shared ownership on the development, plus a short data time period, skew the results.

The quantitative results are compelling and create an holistic picture in combination with Chapters 3 and 4 which cover a broader definition of value and a qualitative expert discussion on the opportunities and risks of legacy development.

Tregunnel Hill, Cornwall

Nansledan, Cornwall

Trevenson Road, Cornwall Trevithick, Cornwall

Rousillon Park, Chichester

Graylingwell Park, Chichester

Derwenthorpe, York

Germany Beck, York

Case study findings point to value premium

The following pages include comparative studies of pairs of developments, to illustrate the qualitative and quantitative benefits of legacy developments. The first two pairs are in Cornwall, the third is in Chichester, West Sussex, and the fourth is in York.

Indexes provide a simple way of representing change over time and each value is expressed as a

percentage of a base value. The base value is represented as 100. If the index moves to 110, the new value is 10% greater than the base value, if it moves to 90, it is 10% lower than the base value.

Comparison one: Tregunnel Hill and Trevenson Road phases I & II

The two sites have been active over similar timescales, with Tregunnel Hill trading between 2014 and 2023 and transacting 228 units.

Trevenson Road phases I and II transactions of 412 units span 14 years of data although 2024 was not included in the analysis.

Albeit slowly, resales in Tregunnel Hill began in the first year of development (2013). In Trevenson Road they began one year post start, but didn’t gain any momentum until 2014, three years post start.

The 2015 baseline Tregunnel Hill sales price (psf) increased by 59%, the two phases of Trevenson Road reach a 39% growth. The legacy site thereby contributes a 20% value premium.

On an annual basis the legacy site demonstrates 6.0% per annum, whilst the non-legacy site delivers 4.2%.

Tregunnel Hill (legacy site)

Trevenson Road

Tregunnel Hill (legacy site)

Trevenson Road

Tregunnel Hill, Newquay

Comparison two: Nansledan and Trevithick

The two sites have been active over similar timescales, with Nansledan trading between 2015 and 2024 and transacting 593 units.

Trevithick’s transactions of 305 units span 9 years of data between 2016 and 2024. 2024 data was not included in the analysis for either site.

Similarly to Tregunnel Hill, resales in Nansledan began in the first year of development (2015), and were marginally more buoyant than Trevithick, which also started in the first year of development. During this phase at Nansledan, key community infrastructure was established,

including a neighbourhood centre with 25 shops, green spaces, play areas, pocket parks, and large allotments to support Newquay’s needs. From the 2018 baseline Nansledan sales price (psf) increases by 43%, whilst Trevithick achieved 31% growth.

The legacy site thereby contributes a 12% value premium. On an annual basis the legacy site demonstrates 7.4% per annum, whilst the non-legacy site delivers 5.6%.

Nansledan (legacy site) Trevithick

Immediate

Nansledan, Newquay

Comparison three: Rousillon Park and Graylingwell Park phases II & IV

The two sites have been active over different timescales, with Rousillon Park trading between 2012 and 2023 and transacting 249 units. Graylingwell Park phase II & IV’s transactions of 123 units span 8 years of data between 2017 and 2024 although the 2024 data was not included in the analysis.

Similarly to Tregunnel Hill, resales in Rousillon Park began in the first year of development (2012), although slowly.

Graylingwell Park has been trading for four years before the first resales, and the transaction numbers are small. As an edge of urban site, Rousillon Park ‘borrows’ amenity and services from the existing offer and relies less on developing new community infrastructure. The Community Hall, the main amenity / community

infrastructure on the site was completed during phase two.

From the 2019 baseline

Rousillon Park sales price (psf) increases by 27%, whilst Graylingwell Park phase II & IV achieved 18% growth.

The legacy site thereby contributes a 9% value premium. On an annual basis the legacy site demonstrates 6.2% per annum, whilst the non-legacy site delivers 4.3%.

Rousillon Park (legacy site) Graylingwell Park

Rousillon Park

Comparison four: Derwenthorpe phase I and Germany Beck phases I & II

The two sites have been active over different timescales, with Derwenthorpe phase I trading between 2014 and 2023 and transacting 99 units. Germany Beck phases I & II’s transactions of 141 units span just six years of data between 2019 and 2024 although the 2024 data was not included in the analysis. Derwenthorpe resales began in year two of trading (2015), Germany Beck was in year three of sales before resales took place.

As well as trading at different times, Derwenthorpe, masterplanned by The Joseph

Rowntree Trust (JRT) and executed by David Wilson Homes, has significant levels of social and shared ownership housing, making up in the region of 35% of the development.

The above goes some way to explaining value differential. From the 2021 baseline Derwenthorpe phase I sales price (psf) increases by only 2%, whilst Germany Beck phases I & II achieved 28% growth.

The legacy site thereby contributes a -26% value premium. On an annual basis

the legacy site demonstrates 0.9% per annum, whilst the non-legacy site delivers 13.5%.

Creating community was also high on the JRT agenda and the Sustainable Services Centre, known as the SSC, was completed in the first phase of the development. The site is walkable and accessible and as referred to later in the report, it receives a Neighbourhood Index score of 8.7. The highest amongst our group.

The data is the best available over the relatively short time scales. The sites have only gone through one market cycle. Repeating the analysis in the future will build upon the initial assessment.

Derwenthorpe (legacy site) Germany Beck

Chapter 3: Legacy development toolkit

By evaluating future development through the eight components of legacy development, as outlined in the diagram below, all schemes can provide additional impact to a formulaic delivery of units. An urban or edge of urban scheme for example may focus on accessibility and social inclusion, whilst a rural or edge of village development might emphasise the natural environment.

The eight components are often complementary and work best in combination with each other. However, the toolkit approach

enables an appropriate combination which enhances the development whilst maintaining viability.

Every project and location has unique needs, aspirations, and potential benefits. Achieving a balance is essential to ensuring a lasting legacy. However, it is understood that there may be an emphasis on one particular characteristic of the legacy. As long as this focus maintains balance with other criteria, it is acceptable to prioritise specific aspects.

Characteristics of Building Legacy Communities

Natural Environment: Habitat protection woodland sustainable drainage | bio-diversity & ecology

Local Identity: Responds to natural constraints heritage & landscape sensitivities | distinctive character historic building pattern | building articulation

Stewardship: On-going public consultation | a binding masterplan & design codes | strategy documents for movement, public realm, sustainablity & green infrastructure provides a balance of jobs

Accessiblity & Connectivity: Walkable | bikeable | transit-ready proximate to daily needs parking strategy mix of uses

Housing of All: Diversity of age | affordable tenure blind meets local needs gentle and appropriate densities mix of housing typology

Sustainablity: Local resource-efficient materials reduced energy & water use | durable | reuse whole life carbon

Social Equity & Community: Education social interactions | community gathering social values cultural needs

Quality Public Realm Safe engaging | accessible | comfortable mix of open space

Equity& Engagement

As mentioned elsewhere in this document, larger-scale projects often have a greater capacity for incremental legacy commitments, allowing for a more flexible legacy delivery. The sliding scale approach enables the prioritisation of specific characteristics while downplaying others. However, any reduction in one area necessitates an increase in others. The following charts provide examples, but the calibration may vary depending on the specific context of each project.

3.1 Value through accessibility and amenity

Returning to our view of fair value, premium alone is not sufficient to encapsulate the potential economic, societal and environmental value created by housing and community.

The following analysis using the PLACE LOGIC (placelogic.org.uk) tool assesses the wider neighbourhood benefits of our comparator sites, whether through the scheme itself or ‘borrowed’ from surrounding areas.

The 20 minute neighbourhood is not new

Despite its prevalence in modern planning and urban design literature, the 20 minute neighbourhood is not a new idea. The Garden City Movement of the early 20th century was one of the first proponents of the concept, promoting communities with a mix of housing types and uses.

The concept has since acted as a cornerstone for more contemporary theoretical movements such as New Urbanism, Smart Growth, and Sustainable Development. The general idea is that residents of a community should be able to meet their daily needs within walking distance.

It is understood that 20 minute neighbourhoods are necessary to promote more sustainable lifestyles, encouraging people to be less dependent on car use. The concept is now promoted by many local planning authorities globally but measured by few.

Defining a 20 minute neighbourhood through transport, education and wellbeing

According to PLACE LOGIC a 20 minute neighbourhood is one that is within a 10 minute walk (800m) or 20 minute round trip (1600m) from:

• Opportunities to grow and buy food;

• Local and regional transport connections and employment space;

• Health facilities;

Capturing the wider benefits of a walkable neighbourhood

For the purposes of this assessment, the street network was downloaded from OpenStreetMap. The street network is made up of nodes (street intersections) and edges (streets). Next, an accessibility analysis was undertaken for each of the amenities that are important for thriving neighbourhoods. Accessibility analysis determines the distance (along the network) of the first relevant facility from each node in the network. The locations

of these amenities were also sourced from OpenStreetMap.

To determine the 20 minute neighbourhood index the results from the accessibility analysis were combined and synthesised. Following the accessibility analysis, each intersection was scored based on its access to each facility. Each intersection was then given a total accessibility score based on the sum of its scores across all accessibility analysis, before the results were simplified using

• Sport facilities, play spaces, and amenity spaces beneficial to our wellbeing; and

• Nurseries and schools for the education of children and young people.

a 10 point scale. Only the points on the street network scoring 10 are within a 10 minute (or 800m) walk, or a 20 minute round trip, of each of the facilities that define a 20 minute neighbourhood.

Case study findings demonstrate broader delivery of value

Through a combination of accessibility, health and education, and community and well-being, the legacy sites all outperform their non-legacy counterparts. As most of the sites are relatively small, they do not necessarily include a mix of uses and amenities within the development. Through a combination of appropriate co-location, walkable streets and connection, however, they can make the most of ‘borrowed’ amenity and infrastructure.

Garry Goodwin, Group Planning and Design Director for Morris Homes

“Why are the home buyers coming? They are coming because there’s a primary school on site, there’s a local centre, there’s open space, there’s linear walks, there’s jogging parks, there’s allotments. They are coming for all of those things.”

All the components of legacy are given equal weighting in chapter 2. For the purposes of accessibility and amenity though, the ability to masterplan effectively and ‘lock in’ at design stage ensures that connectivity with an established and ideally thriving community is greatly enhanced.

Comparison one: Tregunnel Hill and Trevenson Road phases I & II

Comparison two: Nansledan phase II & III and Trevithick

Comparison three: Rousillon Park and Graylingwell Park phases II & IV

Comparison four: Derwenthorpe phase I and Germany Beck phases I & II

3.2 Legacy typologies

The focus of the legacy components will vary depending on location, geography and size of scheme. Here we outline three locations on three different scales. For the largest of schemes, it is likely that multiple developers, (both public and private) are involved over long-term, multiphased delivery. Maintaining design codes throughout the life of the development is vital.

Housing for all, as appropriate to the local need, is required across all sizes and geographies, with design codes reflective of local character and regional building hubs. Sustainability regarding energy efficiency/ resource management, biodiversity net gain and social value is relevant at all sizes and geographies. Smaller developments are less able to support extensive placemaking and amenities. The larger the scheme the greater the social infrastructure required.

Typology 1

Up to 100 homes, new settlement village

Legacy components

• In a rural environment maximising access to the natural environment is key, as is utilising green and blue spaces and potentially looking above 10% biodiversity net gain.

• Aligning affordable housing to the local population, young families and employment opportunities.

• Walkable design is a given, however, there is recognition that rural transport infrastructure is generally less well developed and some car use will be required.

• Pockets of small schemes less likely to overwhelm the existing population.

• Design codes to ensure local identity, and appropriate urban growth are delivered.

• Small community shop to reduce vehicle use and increase rural inclusion.

• Lower density mix than urban.

• Depending on local amenity offer, community and third spaces enable co-mingling of existing and new.

Typology 2

150–1,000 homes, new settlement neighbourhood or urban extension

Legacy components

• Robust analysis of local need and identity to ensure the scheme becomes part of the local fabric and not an island.

• Infrastructure established at the beginning of the scheme.

• Design codes to ensure key identity parameters of design, urban form and infrastructure are controlled. Street composition and building uses are defined, and movement strategies are set out to ensure long-term delivery.

• Walkability is key to enable borrowing of local amenities and prevent a barrier to surrounding areas.

• Social equity and engagement with public realm, and services being appropriate to the wider place, especially services and retail.

• Placemaking and providing permeability including green space, biodiversity net gain.

• Higher density housing including pepperpot affordable, and exploring new well serviced housing, such as co-living.

• Affordable workspace and third spaces.

Typology 3

More than 1,000 homes urban extensions / new towns on strategic transport corridors

Legacy components

• Extensive up-front infrastructure to accommodate services and facilities of an entire place. Schools and localised retail provide anchors, increase walkability and decrease car usage.

• Quality public realm, social infrastructure and third spaces to facilitate a sense of community and relationship building.

• Green space, blue space, biodiversity net gain.

• Permeability to surrounding urban areas if relevant.

• Full mix of housing including family homes, flats, starter homes, retirement provision and multi-tenure.

• Affordable workspace and commercial provision including mixed-use buildings and home office spaces

• Innovative approach to deliveries and sitewide renewable energy optimisation.

Chapter 4: Guided by best practice

An important element of the research has been to peer review and stress test the findings. Two workshops were held with the aim of sharing the research and, most importantly, assessing the components of legacy in the context of delivering elements in appropriate housing-led development.

Ambition maintains vision for the long-term

There is no doubt that ambition and time commitment is required from the landowner, architect, developer, local community and civic partners to deliver legacy development. The reward? A cohesive community living in a walkable, housing-led scheme with consistent design for which landowners and stakeholders alike feel a sense of pride.

Successful schemes create a deep sense of community with access to social infrastructure, activities and amenities, whether on site or borrowed from neighbouring locations. It is these deeper principles that underline legacy development over the pure aesthetics. To this end, the expert groups identified that working with partners on

a scaled down version of full legacy development enables high quality housing that meets the community needs and offers a long term retained interest for the landowner.

A reputation for good quality development may ease future sites and permissions as trust grows with the local authority and the local community.

Customers are attracted by locally available, well provisioned and sustainable homes

Most legacy schemes attract local customers and high levels of interest. Depending on the size of the scheme, buyers/renters are particularly attracted by the social infrastructure such as schools, shops and community spaces. Other attractive factors are accessibility to green/blue spaces or countryside and of

increasing importance is the ability to reduce bills through water and energy efficiency.

It is this desire for efficiency, alongside quality design, which attracts those who historically may have swayed towards older, traditional accommodation.

Commercial spaces are appropriate in the right locations. As well as providing employment opportunities on site, they create an opportunity for the landowner to secure a future income stream.

Partnerships that buy into a shared vision with agreed outcomes

Due to the longer-term nature of legacy development, aligning with the right partners who are either embedded for the long term, or appreciate that their discrete part serves a patient vision, is pivotal. Although a generalisation, the result is that landowners are often aligned with private developers who are not providing quarterly public reports. Masterplanning ‘DNA’ and an understanding of the potential need to wait for value

uplift naturally self-selects those who value and invest in strategic land and work with landowners over much greater timescales.

Not everything to everyone all at once

In all likelihood, ambitious incorporation of legacy components is achievable in any scheme. Costly infrastructure, however, needs to be balanced with the scale of the site, as the burden on large sites can be as much as double the per-dwelling cost of the smaller counterpart. At the time of writing, the delivery of infrastructure and utilities is disproportionally more expensive than ten years ago making it harder to finance long-term legacy development, paying interest over an extended time. Currently on-site costs are at interest rates between 8.5% to 14%.

John Beresford, Managing Director Buckland Development

“There are ongoing studies at the moment looking at infrastructure cost per dwelling on the larger size schemes, as it’s about double what you would have for your 200 or 300 unit sites. It makes it even harder for the landowners who have got big allocations because the infrastructure bill is just such a heavy burden.”

The phrase ‘holding your nerve through early phases to establish quality and placemaking’ was met with agreement at the expert workshops, and the ability to demonstrate value creation was viewed as key. Plus demonstrating the broader, and less tangible benefits of social cohesion and value which result in customer demand and liquidity. For some it was clear that economic value was not the only motivation.

Success relies on trust

built through a well monitored shared understanding

Shared vision, agreed outcomes and strong design codeswhich are well monitored - are the fundamental attributes of success and maintaining quality through multiple phases. Partnership extends well beyond the financiers and those on the construction site. The relationship with civic stakeholders, planners and statutory bodies is key and often developed at local plan consultation phase – if a local neighbourhood plan exists. If clear frameworks and expectations are set at the beginning the potential to streamline the approval process, reducing appeals and risk, is a significant upside for legacy based development.

Ongoing engagement with civic partners through regular meetings builds trust and fosters creative thinking. One of the goals of the Stewardship Initiative, for example, is to develop a kitemark stamp of approval prior to planning submission, thereby giving comfort to planners and the ability to fast track the development through a Local Development Order. Yet to be tested, the approach would give certainty to ambitious projects which rely more heavily on confidence, which is less quantifiable.

Chapter 5: Conclusion and recommendations

Legacy development presents a compelling alternative to conventional housing delivery models, offering both enhanced financial returns and broader societal benefits. The research demonstrates that through a combination of quantitative and qualitative approaches, legacy developments can deliver value premiums of up to 20% while creating more walkable, sustainable, and socially integrated communities.

The toolkit approach to legacy components enables landowners of varying scales and resources to participate in this development model, adapting principles to suit different contexts from urban infill to rural extensions. The evidence suggests that by focusing on accessibility, design quality, and long-term stewardship, developments can achieve both commercial success and positive placemaking outcomes.

To meet the Government’s ambitious target of 1.5 million homes (Dec 2024) within this parliament, a greater diversity

of housing delivery actors is essential. Legacy development offers a framework for landowners, SME developers, and community organisations to contribute meaningfully to housing supply while creating places that will stand the test of time. The approach draws on historical precedents while adapting them to address contemporary challenges of sustainability, affordability, and community cohesion.

Success

requires partnerships built on trust, shared vision, and well monitored design codes.

While infrastructure costs and patient capital requirements present challenges, particularly in the current economic climate, the long-term value creation demonstrated by exemplar schemes validates the approach.

The research points to areas of change within the legacy development sector. Perhaps most readily achievable is ensuring at an early stage, that robust design codes and quality control mechanisms are embedded, most especially for multi-phased delivery. A combination of developerlandowner agreements based on shared objectives and an evidence base of consistent metrics and data collection, will aid change.

Other areas are harder to shift, such as the current rates of borrowing for infrastructure delivery, a lack of industry capacity and skills, and entrenched perception and resistance to change across both civic and public bodies.

To support a shift, the report recommends:

• Creating an industry index to track long-term performance of legacy developments versus conventional schemes.

• Developing innovative legal frameworks that align landowner vision with developer commercial acumen, building on examples like Farrer & Co’s Common Aspiration Contract.

• Fostering information sharing through building hubs to facilitate collaboration, better sharing of resources and skills, and to improve community engagement.

• Exploring support mechanisms for SME developers and landowners to access patient capital for infrastructure investment in legacy schemes.

• Formalising innovative legal agreements that fairly distribute risk and reward between landowners and developers, while maintaining design quality through multiple phases.

Contributors

ADAM Architecture and Bidwells wish to thank the following individuals for their participation in the roundtable groups and contribution to the development of this research

Craig Beevers

John Beresford, Buckland Group

Charles Butters, Sulgrave Advisors

Garry Goodwin, Morris Homes

Tim Leathes, Gummer Leathes

Gail Mayhew, Smart Growth Associates

Ben Murphy, Duchy of Cornwall

David Pennell, Burghley Houe Preservation Trust

Eugene Rapson, Morrish Homes

James Wilson, Davidsons

David Wyatt, Wyatt Homes

Ben Yallop, Croudace Homes

This research has been conducted by Stephanie McMahon, lead researcher at SMCI Ltd, and assembled with the support of Hugh Petter, Robbie Kerr, and Andrew Moneyheffer of ADAM Architecture; Mark Buddle, Giles Dobson, and Chris Pattison of Bidwells

Disclaimers:

Meeting the Housing Challenge has been prepared jointly by Stephanie McMahon, lead researcher at SMCI Ltd, ADAM Architecture, and Bidwells for general informational purposes only. While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy and relevance of the data, analysis, and commentary contained herein, the document is based on information available at the time of publication and is subject to change without notice.

ADAM Architecture and Bidwells do not accept any liability for loss or damage arising from reliance on the contents of this publication. No representation or warranty, express or implied, is given as to the completeness, accuracy, or currency of the information provided. Readers should be aware that government policy, planning guidance, market conditions, and other external factors may evolve over time and impact the relevance or applicability of the views expressed in this document.

Meeting the Housing Challenge-ADAM & Bidwells report 2025-FINAL_spreads