Critical Evaluation of Property Development Process - Park Hill Phase 1
PARK HILL PHASE ONE A CRITICAL EVALUATION
UP51005|Property Development Processes
UoD ID: 190003041
Yixuan LI
UP51005 Property Development Processes
Author Yixuan LI
MArch with Urban Planning
University of Dundee
December 2023
Word Count: 5404
Tutor
Dumiso Moyo
“I think this scheme gives real meaning to the word ‘regeneration’; it represents a new beginning, a new vitality. I sense in those who have been involved the same enthusiasm and excitement that Jack Lynn and I enjoyed half a century ago. It will be a great place to live!”
—— Ivor Smith, the original architect
Fig.2 Ivor Smith - Park Hill
Executive Summary
This study aims to assess the property development process of a megaproject, with a focus on Park Hill Estate Phase 1 in Sheffield, identified as a megaproject based on key literature resources cited in this report. To evaluate this mixed-use residential project, a critical evaluation framework was constructed. Drawing insights from successful existing frameworks and factors contributing to the success of mixed-use residential developments, this framework enables the identification and rating of successes and failures at each stage of the project's development.
In applying the framework, it demonstrated the effective FrontEnd Planning (FEP) process of Park Hill Phase 1 that minimized risks and ensured a smooth trajectory, with effective adherence to the Development Agreement with strategic development appraisal, contributed by the strong project team and effective project governance. During the execution section, one of the key risks from the risk management was pausing the project a year during the economic recession which helped relatively mitigate substantial financial risks. Moreover, post-implementation, this sustainable regeneration project had positive impacts on sustainability and socio-economic aspects. However, it faced a drawback with increased property prices in the area.
The report concludes that Park Hill Phase 1 is a successful example of the property development process, serving as a precedent for other mixed-use residential megaprojects to aspire to and study, based on the overall success assessed through the critical evaluation framework.
Fig.3 Exterior of Park Hill
0. Site Location
1. Project Timeline
2. Introduction
- 2.1 What is a Megaproject?
- 2.2 Project Description -Park Hill Phase 1 - Mixed-use Residential Development
- 2.3 Park Hill Phase 1, 2011 as a Megaproject
3. Key Stakeholders
- 3.1 Urban Splash (Client & Main Contractor)
- 3.2 Great Places Housing Group (Managing Agent)
- 3.3 & 3.4 Hawkins\Brown & Studio Egret West (Architects)
- 3.5 Grant Associates (Landscape Architect)
- 3.6 Martin Stockley Associates (Structural Engineer)
- 4.2 Sheffield Development Framework Core Strategy 2009 (CS) - 4.3 Making Place Profitable – Public and Private Open Spaces 2007 (MP4) - 4.4 Section 106 of
5. Critical Evaluation Framework (CEF) for Mixed-use Residential Development
- 5.1 Successful (Existing) Framework Studies
-5.1.1 General Project Success Factors– APM Framework
-5.1.2 Megaproject Success Factors– LEP Framework
-5.1.3 Mixed-use Residential Development Success Factor– Planning Policy Framework
- 5.2 Successful Development Process Factors for Mixed-use Residential Development
-5.2.1 Importance of Stakeholder and Role
-5.2.2 What’s the Front-end Planning (FEP)
-5.2.3 Importance of Development Appraisal – FEP Process
-5.2.4 Identification of Risk – FEP Process
-5.2.5 Importance of Secure the Funding – FEP Process
-5.2.6 Importance of Project Governance – FEP Process
-5.2.7 Importance of Risk Management - Execution
-5.2.8 Project Impact on Sustainable Development – Post-Implementation
- 5.3 Author’s Critical Evaluation Framework for Mixed-use Residential Development Considering from 5.1-5.2.8
6.0 Stakeholders and Roles - Park Hill Phase one
7.0 Front-end Planning of Park Hill Phase one
A mixed-use Residential Development
- 7.1 Verification of Need & Project Objectives
-7.1.1 Verification of Need
-7.1.2 Project Objectives
- 7.2 Development Appraisal
-7.2.1 Site & Existing Structure Appraisal
-7.2.2 Site Acquisition
-7.2.3 Planning
-7.2.4 Identification of Risk
-7.2.4.1 Unsystematic (Endogenous) Risk
-7.2.4.1.1 Planning Approval & Listed Building Development
-8.1.1.1 Planning Approval & Listed Building Development
-8.1.1.2 Technical Risks
-8.1.2 Exogenous Risk
-8.1.2.1 Financial Risks
-8.1.2.2 Market Risks
9.0 Post-Implementation of Park Hill Phase one
A mixed-use Residential Development
-9.1 Project Impact
-9.1.1 Sustainability Impact
-9.1.2 Socio-economic Impact
10.0 Critical Evaluation of Park Hill Phase one
-10.1 Front-End Planning Evaluation Matrix
-10.2 Summative Project Evaluation Matrix - from the CEF.
11.0 Conclusion
12. Residual Valuation of the Project - Calculation
13.0 References -12.1 Bibliography
-12.2 List of
A
Park Hill Estate is strategically positioned at the east end (gateway) of Sheffield, close to the railway station and the city centre. It is next to a linear park known as South Street Openspace. The Phase 1 development is situated at the northern apex of the entire estate.
Fig.4 Location of Park Hill Phase 1
1. Project Timeline
09.2002
Authorized work on procuring and searching for a developer partner to work with the Partnership to regenerate Park Hill
Park Hill’s future was secured when it was granted Grade II* listed status, making it the largest listed structure in Europe by English Heritage.
Urban Splash planned to develop Park Hill into a mixed-tenure & mixed-use estate.
Urban Splash was selected as the partner for the project, Park Hill Phase 1 secured funds to develop the concept, and try to find the co-developers through compe��on.
By the end of 2003, tenants were being moved out of Phase 1 Blocks
Developer Urban Splash signed the Development Agreement of Park Hill Regenera�on and purchased the estate
Urban Splash submi�ed the applica�on for outline planning permission
Front-End Planning Process Design Development
UK-Wide Economic Recession
The project was temporarily halted due to the Economic Recession
Park Hill Phase 1 refurbishment completed 2007.06 – Urban Splash joined the project as the client and main contractor.
Co-developers: Hawkins/Brown, Studio Egret West and Grant Associates.
2007.10 – Park Hill Phase 1
Detailed Planning applica�on agreed.
2007.11 Full refurbishment of Park Hill Phase 1 began.
Refurbishment Restarted
2013.01 - First Residents and commercial tenants moved In
2. Introduction
2.1 What is a Megaproject?
Megaprojects are typically defined as "largescale, complex ventures" (P.6, Flyvbjerg, 2014) that often entail significant financial investments, extended timelines, and substantial technical, social, and environmental challenges. According to the British Annual Report on Major Projects for 2022-23, it emphasizes that, during periods of rising costs, particularly in the construction sector, innovation plays a crucial role in long-term cost savings (P.2, Smallwood, 2023). This aligns with the broader government objectives aimed at stimulating economic recovery. Furthermore, Flyvbjerg categorizes megaproject management into four dimensions: "political, technological, economic, and aesthetic" (P.6, Flyvbjerg, 2014). These "Four sublimes" can serve as criteria for defining megaprojects. However, it's not mandatory to encompass all four of Flyvbjerg's sublimes; a project should involve at least one sublime. Last but not least, it's crucial that the project should significantly affect society.
2.2 Project Description – Park Hill Phase One (PH. P1)
The Park Hill Estate was originally completed in 1961 as a council housing project. However, due to significant disrepair, a mixed-use residential (refurbishment) project was proposed after
2.3 PH. P1 (2011) as a Megaproject
the estate was listed in 1998. The initial phase of refurbishment focused on Flank A, B, and C. The renovation concept took shape around 2005 when a collaborative team consisting of Urban Splash (Property development Business), Hawkins\Brown, Studio Egret West (Architects), and Grant Associates (Landscape architects) embarked on a mission to transform the area into a modern, sustainable, and inclusive mixeduse residential complex, fostering a vibrant and inclusive community.
Urban Splash acted as the client and main contractor for this project and signed the development agreement with Sheffield City Council, acquiring the estate's land in 2004 for £1 (Sheffield City Council, 2016) (Wainwright, 2022).
Following extensive planning of the design and construction, refurbishment construction commenced in 2007. However, it was temporarily halted in the same year due to the economic recession. Subsequently, the project resumed in 2009 and reached completion in 2011. Notably, the project garnered significant attention for its groundbreaking regeneration of the brutalist building. Urban Splash's vision was to transform the area from a "sink estate" into "a place where people would want to live and invest” (Hatherley, 2009).
PH. P1 encompassed the category of a megaproject due to its technological, economic, and aesthetic significance, which earned it a nomination for the 2013 Stirling Prize. The project faced a considerable challenge in its attempt to perform a deep retrofit of the Grade II* listed large-scale housing refurbishment, setting a precedent for future brutalist-building developments. Notably, specific technological and aesthetic aspects of this undertaking required the stakeholders to assume complex roles to distribute the project's risks and ensure its viability for all partners involved.
Fig.6 Park Hill Pahse 1 Enterance
3. Key Stakeholders
3.1 Urban Splash
Urban Splash is a renowned UK-based property development company that specializes in creating exceptional places for people to live and work, focusing on regeneration and sustainable urban development projects. The company is known for its innovative approach to architecture and design.
Urban Splash's primary objective is to transform the PH. P1 site into a predominantly private mixed-tenure community, featuring a diverse range of housing options, including homes for market rent, private sale, and shared ownership. They have played a pivotal role in driving the redevelopment of the estate, collaborating closely with architects to ensure a sustainable renovation of PH.P1.
3.2 Great Places Housing Group
Great Places Housing Group is dedicated to enhancing the lives of residents in their 24,000 homes across the Northwest and Yorkshire, extending beyond traditional housing services to help PH.P1 construction. Moreover, their mission involves fostering thriving communities through affordable housing initiatives.
3.3 & 3.4 Hawkins\Brown & Studio Egret West
Hawkins\Brown is an architectural firm known for its commitment to societal impact through human-centric architecture. Founded in 1988, they are recognised for their innovative and dynamic approach to architectural design.
Studio Egret West is a multidisciplinary design and architecture firm including urban design, architecture, landscape architecture, graphic
design, and more, to offer comprehensive design solutions. They specialize in creating memorable places with compelling “narratives and identities, firmly rooted in their context and grow naturally out of it” (Studio Egret West, no date).
Both firms collaborated closely on the mixeduse residential design, with a particular focus on the choice of materials. This included the use of brightly coloured anodized aluminium panels and large expanses of glazing to replace traditional brick panels and timber windows. Additionally, in the context of this mixed-use development, they went beyond modernizing the estate to contemporary standards. They also created a vibrant community environment at ground level, featuring a variety of shops, bars, cafes, and restaurants (Hawkins\Brown, no date).
3.5 Grant Associates
Grant Associates is a pioneering international landscape architecture practice. They are known for their creative and collaborative approach to landscape architecture, focusing on sustainable urban and rural landscapes with a clear purpose. Grant Associates aims to "reconnect people with nature in insightful, delightful and distinctive ways whilst addressing the global challenges of urbanisation, the climate crisis and biodiversity extinction." (Grant Associate, no date)
The Associates planned on landscaping the slopes of the site, with a focus on creating a vibrant habitat that is not only appealing to people but also serves as an “attractive environment for birds and other wildlife” (Grant Associates, no date).
3.6 Martin Stockley Associates
Martin Stockley Associates was an engineering consultancy firm based in Manchester, United Kingdom. The firm was known for its work in landscape architecture and engineering solutions. Martin Stockley as the leader of Associates provided a variety of engineering solutions, and he also was a Design Council Expert and a member of the Highways England Design Review Panel.
The structural engineer collaborated closely with the architects to address technical challenges, particularly related to the repair and upgrade of the PH.P1 concrete frame. A substantial undertaking, this involved performing "over 5000 in-situ concrete repairs" (Hawkins\Brown, no date).
3.7 Simon Fenton Partnership
Simon Fenton Partnership is a construction company based in Manchester, United Kingdom and formed in 1998. They have developed a
strong reputation for their work on a wide range of projects, some of which have a value of up to £250 million. The company specializes in various construction projects, including residential and large-scale community regeneration projects, City Centre apartment schemes, affordable housing schemes, and more. (SFP, 2010)
3.8 Ashmount Consulting Engineers
Ashmount Consulting Engineers is a company that specializes in mechanical and sustainable building services design consultancy. They work across various sectors, including healthcare, education, and residential projects, focusing on low-carbon and sustainable solutions. (Ashmount Consulting Engineers, no date)
Urban Splash
Hawkins\Brown Studio Egret West Grant Associates
Mar�n Stockley Associates Simon Fenton Partnership
Ashmount Consul�ng Engineers
4. Relevant Statutory Planning Policies
The PH.P1 set itself into 4 key policies, the Sheffield Unitary Development Plan 1998 (UDP) and Sheffield Development Framework Core Strategy 2009 (CS), that framed the project, particularly within the local development plans. Additionally, the project also involved with Making Places Profitable – Public and Private Open Spaces 2007 (MP4) project, followed by Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
Sheffield Unitary Development Plan 1998 (UDP)
The Unitary Development Plan focuses on the land and buildings in Sheffield, addressing city mobility and environmental concerns. Promo�ng benefits for residents, workers, and visitors, it is Sheffield's first statutory city-wide development plan in 40 years, excluding the Peak Park area. The plan covers new development, conserva�on, and land-use changes, impac�ng the lives and environment of all Sheffield residents. It aims to shape the city's future appearance, outline the direc�on of encouraged change, and influence planning applica�on decisions. (Sheffield City Council, 1998)
Sheffield Development Framework Core Strategy 2009 (CS)
The Sheffield Development Framework is the City Council's Local Development Framework, prepared in accordance with the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Including how the city will develop spa�ally, the loca�on of different land uses, environmental protec�on, design of areas and buildings, and connec�vity through new development and transporta�on provision.
The Core Strategy, within this framework, serves as the overall spa�al strategy and the pre-eminent document. It outlines the vision for the city un�l 2026, addressing the evolu�on of Sheffield, challenges faced, wider policy context, objec�ves, and spa�al strategy. The Core Strategy has two parts: Part 1 covers context, vision, objec�ves, and spa�al strategy, while Part 2 outlines spa�al policies for the city and its areas. (Sheffield City Council, 2009)
Making Places
Profitable – Public and Private Open Spaces 2007 (MP4)
Sec�on 106 of Town and Country Planning Act 1990
MP4 focuses on innova�ve approaches in planning, designing, maintaining, and u�lizing public spaces. The project aims to showcase how enhancements to open spaces yield posi�ve socio-economic benefits and how these advantages can be sustained over the long term through effec�ve "place-keeping." Through collabora�on with key EU policymakers and networks, the project ac�vi�es aim to demonstrate support for improving interac�on among all stakeholders involved in the open space management process. (Keep. eu, 2021)
The Sec�on 106 in the United Kingdom pertains to planning obliga�ons. These are agreements between local planning authori�es and developers that are intended to mi�gate the impact of a new development. Sec�on 106 agreements are commonly used to address issues such as affordable housing, infrastructure improvements, and other community benefits. (Gov. uk, no date)
5. Critical Evaluation Framework (CEF) for Mixed-use Residential Development
5.1 Successful (Existing) Framework Studies
5.1.1 General Project Success Factors – APM Framework
Establishing a framework for evaluating a project's success is crucial as it allows for a comprehensive assessment of its property development process based on specific criteria. This approach enhances the value of the evaluation by enabling a comparative analysis with other projects of a similar nature. Consequently, it improves the precision of measuring both successes and failures. The Association of Project Management (APM) offers a generic framework that is applicable to any project, outlining 12 key factors. (APM, 2015, p.4-5)
Framework:
1. Effective Governance, 2. Goals and Objectives, 3. Commitment to Project Success, 4. Capable Sponsors, 5. Secure Funding, 6. Project Planning and Review, 7. Supportive Organisations, 8. End Users and Operators, 9. Competent Project Teams, 10. Aligned Supply Chain, 11. Proven Methods and Tools, 12. Appropriate Standards.
5.1.2 Megaproject Success Factors – LEP Framework
Upon examining the APM framework, it becomes evident that certain factors are applicable to megaprojects as well. It is imperative to discern and selectively incorporate pertinent success factors in constructing the examined framework. Consequently, in the further development of the framework, it is crucial to reference a specialized successful megaproject framework, particularly one based on the methodology proposed by Miller and Lessard (2000, p.19).
5.1.3 Mixed-use Development Success Factor – Planning Policy Framwork
By analysing the context of development and delving into additional literature, the key factors contributing to the success of mixed-use residential development have been identified. The foundation for such success often lies in the planning policy, which, notably in the 1990s, advocated for mixed-use development as a mechanism to revitalize town centres. (Department for Communities and Local Government, 2006)
Goals and Objectives
Fig.19 APM Framework
Fig.20 LEP Framework
Fig.21 Framework Studies Bubble Diagram
5.2 Successful Development Process Factors (Mixed-use Residential Development)
5.2.1
Importance of Stakeholder & Role
Moreover, recognizing how stakeholders collaborate to achieve success underscores the importance of stakeholder engagement (SE), characterized as "all participants need to work constructively together to carry out the work at hand to their mutual satisfaction." (Klein,2017). Additionally, Yang et al. (2010) have identified "social responsibilities, prompt communication, and information input" as three critical success factors for SM from the perspective of project managers. Therefore, analyzing stakeholders' descriptions (social responsibilities) and their roles within the project (prompt communication and information input) stands out as a key factor in assessing the project development process.
5.2.2 What is Front-end Planning (FEP)
Understanding Front-End Planning (FEP) in property development processes is essential for discerning why certain projects outperform others. In their book, "Strategic Management of Large Engineering Projects," Miller and Lessard highlight a significant aspect of FEP: “As much as 25 percent of total project cost might be spent on the exploration of issues pertaining to coalition building, governance, adequacy of institutional framework, the role of the state, population support, and the ecological, social, and economic impacts of the project.” (Miller and Lessard, 2000)
5.2.3 Importance of Development Appraisal – FEP Process
"The fundamental element in every property development lies in its geographical location (Reed, Sims, and Sally, 2014, p.42)." The initial step involves confirming search parameters, followed by the formulation of an overarching strategy and objectives that will serve as the foundation for an Integrated Development Strategy (IDS) to identify potential development opportunities. Additionally, the developer's understanding of occupier demand is pivotal, supported by robust market research. Similarly, verifying whether the site is green or brownfield holds significance. As noted by Reed, Sims, and Sally (2014, p.48), "Brownfield land redevelopment can, however, be complex and involve substantial risks," particularly in cases where the site is poorly located or necessitates costly cleanup. Furthermore, negotiating and finalizing the transaction during site acquisition is crucial, as it can mitigate inherent risks in the property development process.
5.2.4 Identification of Risk – FEP Process
A successful developer must possess a profound understanding of identifying the risks. Moreover, it is essential to categorize risks into two types: systematic (Market) risk and unsystematic (Property-specific) risk. As argued by Wilkinson et al. (2008, p.115-116), "a developer should never underestimate risk, and the level of risk in every development scheme should be identified and, if possible, contained or reduced."
Unsystematic Risks:
Risks are caused by factors such as management decisions, labour strikes, technological issues, regulatory changes, or events specific to a particular industry or location.
Systematic Risks:
Risks arise from factors that affect the entire market, such as economic conditions, interest rates, inflation, political instability, and natural disasters.
Fig.22 Unsystematic and Systematic Risks
5.2.5 Importance of Secure the Funding – FEP Process
Securing stable financing for a project stands out as a crucial success factor, complementing considerations of profit yield and investment returns. Apart from profitability, funding is indispensable. In the context of urban regeneration projects, financial support can often be sourced from local authorities, with Reed, Sims, and Sally (2014, p.70) noting that "financial grants are available to developers and the public sector in the UK to develop derelict or rundown inner-city sites and buildings." Furthermore, Wilkinson et al. (2008, p.148) state that "at any given time, there are a number of government grants available," contingent on funding availability and the government's perceived capacity to catalyze change. However, it's important to note that, despite potential wider community benefits, in many instances, the financial incentives may not be sufficient to incentivize developers to undertake a project.
5.2.6 Importance of Project Governance – FEP Process
The project governance, as understood from a management perspective, is described as "the complex process of steering multiple firms, agencies, and organisations that are both operationally autonomous and structurally coupled in projects through various forms of reciprocal interdependencies" (Miller and Floricel, 2000, p.135). The benefits of effective P3 governance are manifold, encompassing the optimization of investments, prevention of common failure pitfalls, and the motivation of staff through enhanced communication. The implementation of robust governance not only minimizes risks associated with change but also maximizes the overall benefits of the initiative (APM, 2012, p.8). Hence, achieving successful governance requires establishing a clear communication system between stakeholders who oversee the project, ensuring it stays on schedule and within budget.
5.2.7 Importance of Risk Management – Execution
According to the importance of risk management, "Megaprojects inherently carry significant risks attributed to their long planning horizons and complex interfaces" (Flyvbjerg, 2006). Ensuring project success demands that "the developer must try to retain control of the development project at all times, and should implement risk reduction and risk control measures whenever possible" (Millington, 2000, p.220).
Endogenous Risks:
Turbulence stems from political, macroeconomic, and social events.
Exogenous Risks:
Turbulence arising from breakdowns of partnerships or alliances or from contractual disagreements.
Fig.23 Endogenous and Exogenous Risks
5.2.8 Project Impact on Sustainable Development – Post-Implementation
The assessment of project impact should particularly focus on the aspect of sustainable development, defined as "the simultaneous pursuit of economic prosperity, environmental quality, and social equity. Companies aspiring to sustainability are required to perform not solely against a single financial bottom line but against the triple bottom line" (Wilkinson et al., 2008, p.310). Analysing this perspective, sustainability can be considered through three sublines
1. An understanding of the relationship between economy, environment and society
2. Equitable distribution of resources and opportunities
3. Living without limitation
Fig.24 Sustainability -Three Sublines
5.3 Author’s Critical Evaluation Framework (CEF) on Mixed-use Residential Development
To evaluate the success of Park Hill Phase One, a Critical Evaluation Framework (CEF) was instituted to define the criteria for project success. This framework allows for a thorough analysis of the project's success and failures, facilitating conclusions regarding potential improvements to the overall process. The CEF, crafted for this study, was developed by incorporating criteria from existing successful frameworks and key factors studies. This synthesis also draws from insights gained during the lecture series of Property Development Processes, contributing to a comprehensive and informed assessment.
The Critical Evaluation Framework for Park Hill Phase1 Mixed-use Residential Development:
Stakeholders and Roles in Park Hill Phase one
Front-end Planning of Park Hill Phase one
-Verification of Need & Project Objectives
-Verification of Need
-Project Objectives
-Development Appraisal
-Site & Existing Structure Appraisal
-Site Acquisition
-Planning
-Identification of Risk
-Unsystematic (Endogenous) Risk
-Planning Approval & Listed Building Development
-Technical Risks
-Systematic (Exogenous) Risk
-Financial Risks
-Market Risks
-Funding
-Project Governance
Execution of Park Hill Phase one
-Risk Management – Endogenous & Exogenous Factors
-Endogenous Risk
-Planning Approval & Listed Building Development
-Technical Risks
-Exogenous Risk
-Financial Risks
-Market Risks
Post-Implementation of Park Hill Phase one
-Project Impact
-Sustainability Impact
-Socio-economic Impact
Fig.25 Author's Critical Evaluation Framwork
C
APPLICATION OF THE EVALUATION FRAMEWORK
FRONT-END PLANNING PROCESS
Fig.26 Exterior of Park Hill Phase 1
6. Stakeholder and Roles - Park Hill Phase One
Stakeholder Descrip�on
Sheffield City Council Local Authority & Client
Urban Splash Client & Main Contractor
Great Places Housing Group Development Partner Managing Agent
Hawkins\Brown & Studio Egret West Architects
Grant Associates
Mar�n Stockley Associates
Simon Fenton Partnership
Ashmount Consul�ng Engineers
Landscape Architect
Structural Engineer
Quan�ty Surveyor & Cost Consultant
Civic Engineer
Role within the Project
In collabora�on with the Regenera�on agency English Partnerships and developing partner Urban Splash and Great Places Housing Group in 2004, Sheffield City Council formulated a response to the future plan for the Park Hill estate.
As the principal developer, Urban Splash took on the responsibility for the property development of PH. P1. Following the acquisi�on of the estate in 2004, the company assumed the roles of both client and main contractor. In 2007, collabora�ve efforts were ini�ated as Urban Splash partnered with co-developers to further push the project.
Great Places not only serves as a provider but also was a managing agent responsible for facili�es management and leasehold services, encompassing security, cleaning, and grounds maintenance at the site since the commencement of the project.
In 2007, both architects joined the project as co-developers, collaborating with Urban Splash and assuming pivotal roles in delivering high-quality architectural design for the project.
In 2007, the landscape architect joined the project with the other co-developers, assuming a key role in delivering the landscaping specifica�ons of the project that aimed to create an a�rac�ve environment for the project.
The structural engineer collaborated closely with the architects to address technical challenges, par�cularly the repair and upgrade of the PH.P1 concrete frame.
The consultant played a crucial role in cost control and quality management, simultaneously offering sugges�ons for cost-cu�ng and supervising quality by providing alterna�ve solu�ons within their technical exper�se.
The engineering group is responsible for construc�ng and maintaining the surrounding infrastructure, including roads, drainage systems, and sewage treatment plants. They contribute their exper�se in engineering and urban planning to ensure the efficient opera�on and ongoing development of urban infrastructure.
Fig.27 Stakeholders and Role table
The success of Park Hill Phase One necessitates the active engagement of all participants, collaboratively working together to accomplish the project's objectives to their mutual satisfaction. As each stakeholder holds a personal investment in the project, the success of Park Hill Phase One becomes mutually advantageous. Stakeholders, with varying time horizons aligned with their priorities, showcase distinct perspectives; Sheffield City Council and developers typically anticipate longer-term returns, while design teams such as engineers and surveyors require shorter returns to address immediate overheads. The analytical table delineates the key stakeholders of Park Hill Phase One and elucidates their respective roles within the project.
Fig.28 Office Space -Park Hill Phase 1
Fig.29 Office Space -Park Hill Phase 1
7. Front-End Planning (FEP) of Park Hill Phase One
7.1 Verification of Need & Project Objectives
7.1.1
Verification of Need
As highlighted in a council-established report, Sheffield faced a shortage of affordable housing, providing guidance for the redevelopment of PH.P1, including commitments to affordable housing and shared ownership in addition to existing policy commitments. This mixed-tenure approach aims to foster diverse communities that offer a safe and high-quality public realm for individuals from various backgrounds (Sheffield City Council, 2016).
In the 20th century, numerous council housing projects, including Park Hill Estate, were developed as part of the city's expansion that caused the shortage. Consequently, PH.P1 adhered to the development agreement (S106), becoming significant in creating affordable and social rent housing. Notably, it became Sheffield's first estate focused on affordable housing during this period.
The original PH.P1, constructed in 1961, faced disrepair due to inadequate funding, resulting in increased crime and a decline in resident satisfaction, prompting families to move out. The estate demanded redevelopment for several reasons, such as poor architectural structure maintenance, resident dissatisfaction (especially concerning safety), lack of private outdoor space (e.g., private balconies), insufficient social diversity, and inadequate public facilities. Addressing these issues through a sustainable solution that seamlessly integrated the estate with its surroundings was deemed a priority for the city (Sheffield, 2003), (RTPI, 2021).
7.1.2 Project Objectives
As a mixed-use residential development, the project's return was in providing affordable and social rent housing, considered a "necessary infrastructure" (Ratcliffe, Stubbs, 2009). The refurbishment of Park Hill Phase One was guided by a clear understanding of the aims and objectives of the potential project. According to Syms (2010, p.6), "Usually, the aim will be to undertake some form of improvement to the site, in order to satisfy a particular market demand or need, with the objective of making a profit." However, in this case, the project seeks to counteract the process of gentrification through regeneration using sustainable methods. Therefore, the strategy of refurbishing Park Hill while preserving the original concrete building structure is integral to the project's success. The additional objectives of Phase 1 included:
- Promoting the need for affordable housing in Sheffield
- Delivering 260 refurbished housing units
- Establishing 30,000 sq ft of commercial space with the Grace Owen nursery for the community.
- Creating a round-the-clock community with shops, bars, cafes, and restaurants at ground level.
- Renovating green infrastructure, including allotments, children’s play areas, and a bowling green
- Creating a high-impact visual gateway to the city
- Ensuring quality through detailed design of the interior and façade (Hawkins\ Brown, no date), (Sheffield City Council, 2016), (Place Yorkshire, 2023)
Fig.31 Park Hill Phase 1 Objectives Explained Axo.
Fig.30 Park Hill Phase 1 Objectives
7.2 Development Appraisal
7.2.1
Site & Existing Structure Appraisal
According to the development agreement, Sheffield City Council entrusted land ownership and development responsibilities to Urban Splash (Sheffield City Council, 2016), setting the project up for success. Given the project's uniqueness, the site appraisal includes an assessment of the existing building structure.
The success of any mixed-use residential project hinges significantly on its location. Park Hill (Phase 1), situated at the east end (gateway) of Sheffield near the railway station and the city centre, provides a convenient and desirable location for residents. The surrounding linear park serves as a key natural element for the community. The project was recognized as a brownfield development, due to its Grade II* listed status, it focused on refurbishment, promoting sustainability and avoiding the costly cleanup from demolition. Consequently, an appraisal of the 50-year-old concrete building structure was deemed necessary. Despite the concrete structure's initial poor condition due to prolonged neglect, a thorough quality survey enabled repair and upgrades (Hawkins\ Brown, no date), minimizing potential obstacles in obtaining planning permission.
Moreover, as the Park Hill mixed-use residential development plans to incorporate mixed-tenure, affordable housing, and commercial elements, there is an expected and steady increase in the influx of new customers (Urban Splash, 2016).
7.2.2 Site Acquisition
Ensuring successful site acquisition is crucial for the overall success of a project, especially concerning the design quality in the context of mixed-use residential developments.
Urban Splash secured the position of the Council's developer partner for the entire Park Hill Estate through a competitive procurement process conducted under EU procurement rules (Sheffield City Council, 2016). This partnership was solidified by a development agreement of the Section 106 between Sheffield City Council (the local authority and client) and Urban Splash (the client and main contractor). The agreement, finalized on 24 December 2006, outlined the development commitments and timescales for the estate. Hence the Site acquisition in 2004 was confirmed valid, and needs to obey the agreement included strict conditions, which mandated amenities such as retail spaces and a replacement facility for the nursery, along with clear ownership arrangements.
Great Places Housing Group / Social rented - 96 units
Shared ownership / Shared equity - 10 units
Open market - 154 units (RTPI, 2021), (Sheffield City Council, 2016)
Fig.32 Park Hill Phase 1 Owenership
Fig.33 Aerial View of Park Hill Phase 1
7.2.3 Planning
Following Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the Development Agreement was established with strict conditions. The project site/estate, listed under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 as amended for its special architectural or historic interest (Historic England, 2013), presented a primary challenge for the planning application of the refurbishment. Sheffield City Council, as the exclusive UK leader partner in MP4, advocated major project planning, designing, maintaining, and using public places. The objective was to demonstrate how open space improvements offer positive socio-economic benefits and how these benefits could be sustained for key communities (Keep.eu, 2021). It is reasonable to assume that Sheffield City Council encouraged Urban Splash to utilize this program for the mixed-use residential development for two reasons. Firstly, Park Hill was the sole mixed-use residential major project during the program period (2007-2013), including the master planning of the public area to enhance community quality, designed and planned by Grant Associates. Secondly, the socio-economic benefits of the residential and commercial elements could be assessed in the community/public space. Given the project's scale, statutory consultees from Sheffield City Council, Historic England and English Heritage (Urban Splash, 2020) played a crucial role, and their consent was necessary to obtain planning permission. These planning obligations were detailed at the local level.
At a local level, the proposal had to align with criteria set out by Sheffield City Council in local development UDP1998 and CS 2009 that outlined from land use, design and external appearance, dealing with the impact of the listed building, sustainability and landscape, particularly focusing on the CIL aspect. As per Policy CS40, developers in all city areas must contribute to affordable housing provision where feasible and financially viable (Sheffield City Council, 2018).
Fig.34 Park Hill Phase 1
7.2.4 Identification of Risk
Similar to other property development projects, Park Hill Phase 1 faced several risks both unsystematic (endogenous) and systematic (exogenous). The identification of risk is a foundation for risk reduction and management in the Front-End planning process.
7.2.4.1
Unsystematic (Endogenous) Risk
7.2.4.1.1
Planning Approval & Listed Building Redevelopment
As mentioned in the planning section, approaching the mixed-use residential development necessitates ensuring the feasibility of the Park Hill design and surrounding landscape planning through planning approval on the listed building. Relevant policies, such as BE15 & 19 on the impact on listed buildings (UDP, 1998), emphasize that the development must not harm the listed buildings' character. They also specify the need to preserve the character and appearance of the building and, where appropriate, preserve or repair original details and features of interest. This poses a challenge and introduces uncertainty risks for the design team. Such uncertainties could potentially lead to development delays and increase local authority costs, creating pressure to provide alternative housing for the displacement of original tenants. This situation may strain the partnership between Urban Splash and Sheffield City Council and could even lead to the termination of the Development Agreement.
7.2.4.1.2
Technical Risks
As mentioned in the Site & Existing Structure Appraisal section, the project may face various technical issues within the old, poorly maintained concrete building structure (Urban Splash, no date). Moreover, since the structure is the sole retaining element, deconstruction tasks such as removing interior nonloadbearing walls and façade elements (windows & balustrades) could pose significant technical risks. Additionally, these challenges are closely linked to worker safety concerns during the construction process.
7.2.4.2 Systematic (Exogenous) Risk
7.2.4.2.1 Financial Risks
Before a project can commence, attracting investment interest and securing funding is essential. In the case of this project, initially undertaken by Urban Splash, the need for co-developers and other stakeholders was crucial for its development. Given the project's complexity and the lack of immediate, obvious returns from affordable housing, attracting developers was challenging. The project involved higher risk than usual mixed-use projects, making it difficult to search for co-developers. Furthermore, if Urban Splash proceeded without any co-developers, it would bear all the financial risks solely on itself, posing a particularly risky scenario from a financial perspective. The financial crash led to a sharp increase in inflation rates, resulting in an overall escalation of costs for projects of this nature.
7.2.4.2.2 Market Risks
As a consequence of the global housing market crash in 2008 and the subsequent downturn in the market (Sheffield City Council, 2016), it posed a significant market risk during the refurbishment of council housing into mixed-use residential buildings. This heightened the possibility of uncertainty during that period.
Fig.36 Park Hill Phase 1 Risks
Fig.35 Previous Park Hill Phase 1
7.2.5 Funding
Securing stable finance is imperative for the success of any project, with various methods available and primarily assessed against profit yield and investment returns. Before the project started the Council had committed to a “transformational scheme to bring investment to ensure an attractive” in 2005 (Sheffield City Council, 2016). Moreover, the initiation of the Park Hill Regeneration project occurred when Urban Splash secured funding (£47.4 million) from local and national sources, emphasizing the promotion of a sustainable community and the creation of affordable and social rent housing (Historic England, no date),(Inside Housing, 2013). The funding played a crucial role in advancing the project, allowing Urban Splash to seek co-developers from the competition and ensuring the smooth progression of future development work. Furthermore, the project benefitted from avoiding the investment needed for site acquisition, given the council's existing ownership, leading to reduced overall costs. However, major development costs, such as refurbishment construction and professional fees for addressing technical issues, must be carefully considered. This underscores the importance of the investment opportunity created by the City Council, and also the initial funding secured by Urban Splash, which significantly contributed to the success of the Front-End Planning (FEP) process. Without this initial funding, the development proposal would likely not have progressed sufficiently to attract potential co-developers.
Funding List:
Historic England Repair Grant – £400k
Transform South Yorkshire – £13m Homes and Communities Agency – £24m Great Places – £10m
7.3 Project Governance
To ensure effective governance, PH.P1 operated under a transparent management system involving all stakeholders. This structure clarified roles, with Sheffield City Council and Urban Splash jointly serving as the client, directing their requirements through the architects. Urban Splash also assumed the role of the main contractor, collaborating with Roger Hawkins and holding primary responsibility for consultants and the construction team (Urban Splash, no date). In terms of project objectives, this governance approach proved highly effective. Despite a temporary halt during the Economic Recession and a two-year delay, excellent management and decision-making ensured the project remained on time (Anticipated Completion: 2012-14) and on the budget (Total cost 36.5 million sterling pounds). It prioritized the quality of the scheme and the initial architectural concept of the mixed-use residential development, minimizing the potential for cost-cutting measures that might compromise these priorities.
Fig.37 Funding
Fig.38 Rebirth of Park Hill Phase 1
DAPPLICATION OF THE EVALUATION FRAMEWORK
EXCUTION, POST-IMPLEMENTATION
EVALUATION AND CONCLUSION
Fig.39 Park Hill Phase 1
8.1 Risk Management – The Endogenous & Exogenous Factors
A successful project not merely requires the identification of project risks before they occur to prevent serious problems but also necessitates the effective management of challenges and risks that may arise during the development process. As outlined in the Identification of Risk chapter, key risks can be categorized into unsystematic (endogenous) risks - Planning Approval & Listed Building Development and technical risks, and systematic (exogenous) risks - Financial risks and market risks. The following details the risk management implemented during the execution stage of Park Hill Phase 1 development.
8.1.1 Management of Endogenous Risk
8.1.1.1
Planning Approval & Listed Building Redevelopment
To address the risk of reduction during the management stage, Urban Splash was fortunate to secure sufficient funding and engage reliable co-developers who played roles as architects and landscape architects. They worked closely to tackle both the building and surrounding landscape planning challenges. According to David Bickle from Hawkins\ Brown, "Urban Splash, at every step of the way, has positively shaped the proposal. Its input has been invaluable and its loyalty, creative thinking and nerve unswerving" (Architects Journal, 2013). The project brought the 'transformational change' while staying true to the original spirit, confronting and dispelling long-term negative perceptions of Park Hill. Urban Splash's effective consultations with Sheffield City Council, Historic England and English Heritage (Urban Splash, 2020) reduced risks related to planning approval. They showcased the dedication of this sustainable mixeduse residential development based on the listed building. This success became a key factor for the project and set a precedent for listed estate development.
8.1.1.2 Technical Risks
To mitigate the risk, Hawkins\ Brown and Martin Stockley Associates took on the responsibility of addressing the key technical issues. They focused on ensuring the integrity of the retaining structure, managing the deconstruction elements of the building, and overseeing the technical engineering of the development. Their efforts resulted in substantial improvements to the concrete building structure, involving approximately "5500 specialist concrete repairs, all done by hand" (Urban Splash, no date), contributing to a safer construction process.
Fig.40 Repaied and Upgraded Concrete structure
8.1.2 Exogenous Risk
8.1.2.1
Financial Risks
In addressing the financial risks identified, the project took steps to minimize these risks by securing sufficient funding through investment opportunities created by the City Council, national, and city-wide funding, and engaging reliable co-developers. However, due to the unforeseen economic crash in 2008, the project was strategically paused—an extreme yet efficient method to mitigate the substantial risk promptly. The project resumed a year later, initiating the lowest financial risk work, which involved installing prefabricated concrete balustrades and brightly coloured anodized aluminium panels with large expanses of glazing. This served as a transitional phase between the deconstruction work and subsequent large engineering efforts.
8.1.2.2
Market Risks
The strategy employed to mitigate market risk during the economic recession involved diversifying the risk across various sectors, including housing (social rent/ open market), commercial, and office areas. This diversification was intended to help offset "risks associated with fluctuations in demand and market conditions" (Sell, 2023). Furthermore, measures such as increased rental yield and offering a variety of housing types (10 types of flats in Park Hill Phase 1) were implemented to adapt to shifting market dynamics. Additionally, as the project served as a mixed-use residential development, the synergy and cross-promotion between different components were deemed effective in reducing risk. This approach was anticipated to enhance tenant/ owner satisfaction and attract a broader customer base.
Fig.41 Park Hill
9. Post-Implementation of Park Hill Phase one
9.1Project Impact
9.1.1 Sustainability
Impact
Park Hill, once known for its dereliction and notoriety for anti-social behaviour due to a lack of funding (Urban Splash, 2020), (RTPI, 2021), has undergone a significant transformation through effective land use and deep retrofitting. This transformation has given rise to a reformed community, eliminating previous issues. The comprehensive changes made to existing buildings and their surrounding landscape have notably improved residents' living conditions by promoting housing quality, increasing green space, fostering biodiversity, and reclaiming derelict areas (UNA, 2021).
"Every green space in and around the building is purposeful – including allotments, children’s play areas, and a bowling green. The result is a building that feels grounded within its very own parkland" (Hawkins\ Brown, no date).
Fig.42 Sustainability Imapct
Considering that "the built environment contributes 42% of the UK’s total carbon footprint" (Historic England, 2019), the strategy of the Park Hill Phase 1 refurbishment not only preserves its "spirit" but also reduces emissions by retaining the structure and utilizing prefabricated elements during construction. The BREEAM accreditation of Park Hill Phase 1 is very good (Hawkins\ Brown, no date). This approach not only enhances air quality but also sets a strong precedent for future approaches to regeneration projects according to the UK Green Building Council.
Fig.43 Sustainability Impact
9.1.2 Socio-economic Impact
Park Hill Phase 1, as a mixed-use residential regeneration project, stands out from other property developments by prioritizing the creation of a sustainable and attractive neighbourhood over purely capital investment, returns, and profit margins. The project aimed to dispel long-term negative perceptions of Park Hill and stimulate development in deprived areas (UNA, 2021).
At the local level, the mixed-use development has positively impacted the liveability of residents and the community (UNA, 2021). The project has successfully fostered a real community where residents and businesses socialize through events like Christmas and Summer parties, supported by the Park Hill Residents Association.
"All of this regeneration has created a thriving community that the city is proud of – it’s not only the physical concrete structure that has been transformed but life has been reimagined into it through positive cultural activity" (Urban Splash, 2020).
Fig.44 Socio-economic Imapct
The living quality of the residents was promoted by this contemporary and sustainable estate regeneration, fostering diversity through its mixed tenures. The combination of public and commercial areas enhances the ambience and social dynamics of the estate. Moreover, the improvement in creating high-quality public spaces enhances social cohesion and the connection between people and nature, providing residents with rest points, green spaces, and a nursery, as well as facilitating a "round-the-clock community of shops, bars, cafes, and restaurants at ground level" (Hawkins\ Brown, no date).
Future developments in Phase 2-4 aim to build on these existing successes, particularly focusing on the implementation of affordable housing and student accommodation. This approach is anticipated to benefit not only Park Hill estate residents but also the wider community (Urban Splash, 2023).
The project has taken steps to address the iden�fied needs in the regenera�on, par�cularly focusing on the shortage of affordable housing in Sheffield. The objec�ves aim to alleviate this housing shortage, especially through sustainable refurbishment.
The objec�ves show a focus on sustainable development, addressing the shortage of affordable housing and contributing posi�vely to the community through mixed-use development.
The site's strategic loca�on and avoidance of costly demoli�on contribute to the project's success.
Urban Splash adhered to the Development Agreement, acquiring the en�re estate under favourable condi�ons for almost free.
The project successfully navigated the relevant planning frameworks and policies to achieve development goals.
Key risks were iden�fied, aiding in risk reduc�on and management during execu�on.
The project secured substan�al funding from na�onal and city-wide funding.
The emphasis on affordable housing could be strengthened, making it a more central focus of the project.
While the project touches on affordable housing, there may be room to set more ambi�ous targets aligned with city/community needs.
The poor quality of the 50-year-old concrete structure could be seen as a challenge, but the project posi�ons it as an opportunity for achieving sustainability.
No major issues were reported in the acquisi�on process. 9
No major issues were reported in the acquisi�on process.
Economic recession dynamics make it challenging to fully predict financial and market risks.
Some funding was allocated to the broader Park Hill Estate regenera�on, not exclusively to Phase 1. Project Governance
Effec�ve governance during Front-End Planning led to the project's �mely and budgeted handover.
Limited evidence on governance during the economic recession, creating some uncertainty. Further informa�on is needed for a comprehensive evalua�on.
CEF. : Author’s Cri�cal Evalua�on Framework for Mixed-use Residen�al Development Process 1-5: Complete fail to meet CEF. 6: Only meet few parts of CEF. with wider scope of improvement 7: Meet some parts of CEF. with scope of improvement 8:Meet most part of CEF. with few aspects of improvement 9: Successfuly meet all the CEF.
10.2 Summative Project Evaluation Matrix - from the CEF.
The project established a reliable team with clear stakeholders, fostering effec�ve communica�on and strong rela�onships. Led by Urban Splash and Hawkins\ Brown, the collabora�on between the contractor and architects addressed building and landscape planning issues, resul�ng in an efficient design process and �mely project handover.
The project, addressing part of Sheffield's affordable housing shortage, priori�zed livability and sustainability. It retained a significant concrete frame, acquired the en�re site and secured funding effec�vely, and navigated planning frameworks successfully to achieve its development goals.
The FEP process effec�vely iden�fied and mi�gated risks, including planning and technical concerns. During execu�on, hal�ng the project during the economic recession was a strategic move to address substan�al financial risks promptly. The mixed-use residen�al development diversified market risks through various housing types and cross-promo�on, reducing overall project risks.
The development priori�ses sustainability, enhancing housing quality, green space, biodiversity, and reclaiming derelict areas with BREEAM-rated very good. Socio-economically, it posi�vely impacts resident livability, fostering diversity through mixed tenures and mixed-use that enhance social dynamics in Park Hill Phase 1.
Limited evidence on stakeholders and governance during the economic recession, crea�ng some uncertainty. However, overall, the stakeholder and role is considered very good.
The iden�fica�on of exogenous risks, par�cularly the uncertainty and risk associated with the economic recession, posed challenges for project execu�on.
The one-year project pause, while effec�ve in managing substan�al financial risks, introduced an element of uncertainty and poten�al loss in terms of financial and market risks.
The only drawback was the increased property prices in the area.
9
CEF. : Author’s Cri�cal Evalua�on Framework for Mixed-use Residen�al Development Process 1-5: Complete fail to meet CEF. 6: Only meet few parts of CEF. with wider scope of improvement 7: Meet some parts of CEF. with scope of improvement 8:Meet most part of CEF. with few aspects of improvement 9: Successfuly meet all the CEF.
Fig.47 Summative Project Evaluation Matrix From CEF.
11. Conclusion
Applying the critical evaluation framework to the Park Hill Phase 1 development reveals its success as a noteworthy precedent in the property development process, particularly in the context of a mixed-use residential megaproject. The achievement is particularly remarkable given its ability to the transformative concept of refurbish the original council housing buildings by using the method of retaining the building structure and fostering a sustainable and attractive neighbourhood. The project has not only fulfilled its goals but has also become an iconic monument in Sheffield, symbolizing the success of innovative and sustainable approaches to urban development.
The property development process encompasses the entire project, from the initial concept to the final building handover. The effective Front-End Planning (FEP) process minimised potential risks, resulting in a smooth development trajectory with minimal turbulence. A clear understanding of the verification of needs and project objectives, meticulously guaranteed and developed by a robust project team, ensured that each stakeholder clearly understood their roles. This was complemented by a strategic development appraisal that distinctly identified the site appraisal and the evaluation of the retaining structure.
Adherence to the Development Agreement, facilitated by the local authority, streamlined the acquisition of the estate efficiently and cost-effectively. Additionally, a comprehensive understanding of relevant planning frameworks, both local and national, was seamlessly incorporated into the project. The identification of risks played a crucial role in risk reduction and the foundation for risk management during the execution stage. Finally, securing adequate funding and implementing effective governance proved to be key success factors during the FEP, ensuring a solid foundation for project commencement and progression, and ultimately delivering the project on time and within budget.
Throughout the execution period, the project demonstrated effective risk management for both endogenous and exogenous aspects, minimizing risks through successful identification during the FEP process. While the decision to pause the project for a year during the economic recession may have been extreme, it promptly mitigated substantial risks, contributing to the overall success of the project.
In the post-implementation stage, the project has yielded positive impacts on both sustainability and socio-economic aspects. However, a notable drawback has been the increase in property prices in the area.
The success of the Park Hill Phase 1 property development process can be attributed to the strong commitment and creative thinking of all stakeholders. Their unwavering dedication positively shaped the listed building into a sustainable regeneration project, enhancing the local neighbourhood. This combined with a robust strategy and effective management, ensured the project's delivery to a high standard even in the face of challenges such as the economic recession (Architects Journal, 2013). Park Hill Phase 1 stands as a successful example of the property development process, providing valuable lessons for other mixeduse residential megaprojects to aspire to and study.
Fig.48 Exterior of Park Hill Phase 1
12. Residual Valuation of the Project
To complete the residual valuation of Park Hill Phase 1, some assumptions were necessary. The possible assumptions were referenced.
Assumptions:
- The cost of Development of Park Hill Phase 1 is £36.5 million (Architects' Journal, no date).
- The average price for a 2-bedroom flat is £160,000 (Yorkshire Live, 2020).
- The average price for a 3-bedroom flat is £195,000 (Yorkshire Live, 2020).
- Because the extra-large 1-bedroom flat has the same gross area as a 2-bedroom, assume the price as £160,000.
- Each corridor level contains 26 flats, including 11 one-bedroom flats, 2 Extra-large onebedroom flats, 12 two-bedroom flats and 1 three-bedroom flat. Because the total no. of flats in Phase one is 260. Hence, 110 one-bedroom flats, 20 Extra-large one-bedroom flats, 120 two-bedroom flats and 10 three-bedroom flats (Urban Splash, no date).
- Because the Grace Owen Nursery (3500 sq ft) construction is part of the requirement in the Development, assume its price is equal to the construction cost £2650/m2 (Costmodeling, 2023).
- Assuming the office and commercial space are the same gross area, 1230m2 for each.
- Rent price of office space around £232/m2 (LoopNet, 2023)
- Rent price of commercial space around £88/m2 (LoopNet, 2023)
- Assuming development profit around 20%
- Assuming the yield at 8%
Fig.49 Residual Valuation of the Project - Assumptions
A: Gross Value of Development (GDV)
Sale of Dwellings
110 x one-bedroom flats @ £135,000 each = £14,850,000
20 x Extra-large one-bedroom flats @ £160,000 each = £3,200,000
120 x two-bedroom flats @ £160,000 each = £19,200,000
10 x three-bedroom flats @ £195,000 each = £1,950,000
Price For Land = £3,160,145 - £94,804 = £3,065,341
Fig.50 Residual Valuation of the Project - Calculation
13. References
13.1 Bibliography
Reed, R. and Sims, Sally. (2014) Property development. 6th Edition. Abingdon: Routledge.
Wilkinson, S., Sayce, S. and Christensen, P. (eds) (2015) Developing property sustainably. London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Klein, H. (2017) Basics project planning. Basel: Birkhäuser. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783035612905.
Miller, R. and Lessard, D.R. (2000) The strategic management of large engineering projects : shaping institutions, risks, and governance. Cambridge, Mass: [MIT Press].
Mok, K.Y., Shen, G.Q. and Yang, J. (2015) ‘Stakeholder management studies in mega construction projects: A review and future directions’, International journal of project management, 33(2), pp. 446–457. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.08.007.
Ciaramella, A. and Dall’Orso, M. (2021) Urban Regeneration and Real Estate Development: Turning Real Estate Assets into Engines for Sustainable Socio-Economic Progress. 1st edn. Cham: Springer International Publishing AG. Available at: https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-030-67623-0.
Lester, Albert. and Lester, Albert. (2007) Project management, planning and control managing engineering, construction and manufacturing projects to PMI, APM and BSI standards. 5th ed. Amsterdam ; Elsevier/Butterworth-Heinemann.
Miller, R. and Hobbs, B. (2005) ‘Governance Regimes for Large Complex Projects’, Project management journal, 36(3), pp. 42–50. Available at: https://doi. org/10.1177/875697280503600305.
Ratcliffe, J., Stubbs, M. and Keeping, M. (2009) Urban Planning and Real Estate Development. Routledge. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203935729.
Flyvbjerg, B., Bruzelius, N. and Rothengatter, W. (2003) Megaprojects and Risk: An Anatomy of Ambition. Cambridge University Press, pp. ix–ix. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107050891.
Bourne, L. and Walker, D.H.T. (2005) 'Visualising and mapping stakeholder influence,' Management Decision, 43(5), pp. 649–660. https://doi. org/10.1108/00251740510597680.
construction practitioners' perspectives,’ Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 136(7), 778–786. 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000180.
Olander, S and Landin, A. (2005) ‘Evaluation of stakeholder influence in the implementation of construction projects’, Science Direct, 23(4), p. 321-328. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.ijproman.2005.02.002.
Wilkinson, Sara. and Reed, R. (2008) Property development. 5th ed. London: Routledge.
APM. (2015) Conditions for project success APM research report. Available at: https://www.apm.org. uk/media/1621/conditions-for-project-success_web_ final_0.pdf (Accessed: 23 November 2023).
Department for Communities and Local Government (2006) Mixed use development, practice and potential: May 2006. Available at: https://www.livingtransport. com/library/pdf.php?id=102 (Accessed:23 November 2023).
Syms, P.M. (2010) Land, development and design. 2nd ed. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
APM. (2012) APM Body of Knowledge. Available at: https://www.academia.edu/44132624/APM_BODY_OF_ KNOWLEDGE?auto=download (Accessed:28 November 2023).
RTPI. (2021) The rebirth of Park Hill, Sheffield. Available at: https://www.rtpi.org.uk/about-the-rtpi/rtpipresidents/past-presidents/presidential-visits/therebirth-of-park-hill-sheffield/. (Accessed: 28 November 2023).
APM. (2019) Dynamic Conditions for project success. Available at: https://www.apm.org.uk/v2/media/ qyzpgrn4/apm-dynamic-conditions-for-project-success2021-v2.pdf. (Accessed:28 November 2023).
Sheffield City Council. (2018) Agenda item - Park Hill Estate, Duke Street, Park Hill (Case No. 18/01699/ FUL). Available at: https://democracy.sheffield.gov.uk/ documents/s31467/18-01699-FUL.pdf. (Accessed:30 November 2023).
Olcayto, R. (2020) Stirling shortlist: Park Hill by Hawkins\
Brown with Studio Egret West. Available at: https:// www.architectsjournal.co.uk/buildings/stirling-shortlistpark-hill-by-hawkinsbrown-with-studio-egret-west. (Accessed:30 November 2023).
Hawkins\ Brown. (no date) Park Hill: Love, life and pride. Available at: https://www.hawkinsbrown.com/projects/ park-hill/. (Accessed:30 November 2023).
Sell, G. (2023) Mixed-Use developments 2.0: Rethinking the approach for greater returns. Available at: https:// servicedapartmentnews.com/sponsored-content/ mixed-use-developments-2-0-rethinking-the-approachfor-greater-returns/#:~:text=This%20diversification%20 can%20help%20mitigate,demand%20and%20rental%20 market%20conditions.&text=Different%20rental%20 options%20attract%20various,or%20more%20 flexible%20rental%20arrangements. (Accessed:30 November 2023).
Seiler, M. et al. (1999) ‘Diversification Issues in Real Estate Investment’, Journal of Real Estate Literature, 7(2), pp. 163-179. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/ stable/44103377. (Accessed:30 November 2023).
Council for British Archaeology. (2022) Achieving a Sustainable Built Environment. Available at: https://www. archaeologyuk.org/resource/achieving-a-sustainablebuilt-environment.html#Ref%203. (Accessed: 3 December 2023).
Historic England. (2019) There’s no Place like Old Homes: Re-use and Recycle to Reduce Carbon. Available at: https://historicengland.org.uk/content/heritage-counts/ pub/2019/hc2019-re-use-recycle-to-reduce-carbon/. (Accessed: 3 December 2023).
Urban Splash. (2023) US30 - They are pioneers and innovators. Available at: https://www.urbansplash. co.uk/blog/us30-pioneers-and-innovators. (Accessed: 3 December 2023).
Urban Splash. (2020) Our award-winning transformation of a brutalist icon. Available at: https://www. urbansplash.co.uk/blog/our-award-winningtransformation-of-a-brutalist-icon. (Accessed: 3 December 2023).
Urban Nature Atlas. (2021) Park Hill Regeneration. Available at: https://una.city/nbs/sheffield/parkhill-regeneration#:~:text=Due%20to%20years%20 of%20under,people%20wanted%20to%20live%20in. (Accessed: 3 December 2023).
Sheffield City Council. (2003) Meeting documents Safer and Stronger Communities Scrutiny and Policy Development Committee Monday 10 November
2003. Available at: https://democracy.sheffield.gov. uk/CeListDocuments.aspx?MID=3124&F=1-6%20 Report%20Park%20Hill%20Market%24embed%24. htm&DF=10%2F11%2F2003&A=1&R=0. (Accessed: 6 December 2023).
Sheffield City Council. (2016) Park Hill Sheffield – Development Agreement. Available at: https:// democracy.sheffield.gov.uk/documents/s24209/ Park%20Hill%20Sheffield%20-%20Development%20 Agreement.pdf. (Accessed: 6 December 2023).
Studio Egret West. (no date) Park Hill. Available at: https://studioegretwest.com/places/park-hill. (Accessed: 6 December 2023).
Urban Splash. (2013) Park Hill Sheffield. Available at: https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/us-websitecontent/Downloads/park-hill/PARK_Brochure_May13. pdf. (Accessed: 6 December 2023).
Blenheim Park Estate. (no date) Park Hill through the years. Available at: https://www.bpestates.co.uk/blog/ Park-Hill-Through-The-Years/. (Accessed: 6 December 2023).
Splash, U. (2020) Our award-winning transformation of a brutalist icon. Available at: https://www.urbansplash. co.uk/blog/our-award-winning-transformation-of-abrutalist-icon. (Accessed: 6 December 2023).
DIVISARE. (no date) Hawkins\Brown, Studio Egret West, Grant Associates · Park Hill. Available at: https://divisare. com/projects/178648-grant-associates-studio-egretwest-hawkins-brown-park-hill. (Accessed: 6 December 2023).
Frearson, A. and Frearson, A. (2015) 'Park Hill Phase 1 by Hawkins\Brown and Studio Egret West. Available at: https://www.dezeen.com/2013/07/22/park-hill-phase1-by-hawkinsbrown-and-studio-egret-west/. (Accessed: 6 December 2023).
Olcayto, R. (2013) Stirling shortlist: Park Hill by Hawkins\ Brown with Studio Egret West. Available at: https:// www.architectsjournal.co.uk/buildings/stirling-shortlistpark-hill-by-hawkinsbrown-with-studio-egret-west. (Accessed: 6 December 2023).
Archdaily. (no date) Park Hill / Hawkins Brown with Studio Egret West. Available at: https://www.archdaily. com/174968/park-hill-hawkins-brown-with-studioegret-west. (Accessed: 6 December 2023).
Park Hill Estate. (no date) Park Hill Sheffield. Available at: https://parkhill.estate/. (Accessed: 6 December 2023).
Wikipedia. (2023) Park Hill, Sheffield. Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park_Hill,_Sheffield. (Accessed: 6 December 2023).
Ryan_B. (2019) Megaproject management. Available at: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ XBQXDcGs3NhqRscxH/megaproject-management. (Accessed: 6 December 2023).
EXPOSED. (2018) A Park Hill Story - Exposed magazine. Available at: https://www.exposedmagazine.co.uk/ culture/park-hill-flats-history/. (Accessed: 6 December 2023).
Pdd (2018) Urban regeneration: Park Hill Flats Sheffield. Available at: https://www.pddinnovation.com/urbanregeneration-park-hill-flats-sheffield/. (Accessed: 6 December 2023).
Inside Housing. (no date) Uphill struggle. Available at: https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/insight/uphillstruggle-36420. (Accessed: 6 December 2023).
BBC. (2014) BBC - South Yorkshire - Places - Park Hill’s future. Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/ southyorkshire/content/articles/2007/05/29/park_hill_ future_feature.shtml. (Accessed: 6 December 2023).
Flyvbjerg, B. (2014) ‘What you should know about Megaprojects and why: An Overview’, Sage Journals, 45(2), pp. 6-19. Available at: https://journals.sagepub. com/doi/epdf/10.1002/pmj.21409. (Accessed: 6 December 2023).
Gov.uk. (2023) Annual Report on Major Projects 202223. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov. uk/media/64c91eaed8b1a71e86b05df3/IPA-Annualreport-2022-2023.pdf.pdf. (Accessed: 6 December 2023).
Wainwright, O. (2022) It always felt good here’: how Sheffield’s brutalist Park Hill estate survived the haters and their bulldozers. Available at: https://www. theguardian.com/artanddesign/2022/apr/07/parkhill-from-brutalist-glory-to-sink-estate-to-contentiousregeneration. (Accessed: 6 December 2023).
Studio Egret West. (no date). Available at: https:// studioegretwest.com/. (Accessed: 6 December 2023).
Splash, U. (2019) Meet our designers - Studio Egret West. Available at: https://www.urbansplash.co.uk/designers/ studio-egret-west. (Accessed: 6 December 2023).
Grant Associated. (no date). Available at: https://grantassociates.uk.com/. (Accessed: 6 December 2023).
Hawkins\ Brown. (no date). Available at: https://www. hawkinsbrown.com/conversation/greet-the-street/. (Accessed: 6 December 2023).
SPF. (no date). Available at: http://www.sfp-mcr.co.uk/. (Accessed: 6 December 2023).
Ashmount Consulting Engineers. (no date). Available at: http://esos-online.uk/. (Accessed: 6 December 2023).
Great Places Housing Group. (no date) Partners. Available at: https://www.greatplaces.org.uk/about-us/ our-partners/. (Accessed: 6 December 2023).
Great Places Housing Group. (no date) Park HillSheffield. Available at: https://www.greatplaces.org. uk/careers/our-offices-and-teams/sheffield-park-hill/. (Accessed: 6 December 2023).
Sheffield City Council. (no date) Adopted Sheffield Local Plan. Available at: https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/ planning-development/sheffield-plan. (Accessed: 6 December 2023).
Yorkshire Place. (2023) Amended Park Hill Plans tipped for approval. Available at: https://www.placeyorkshire. co.uk/amended-park-hill-plans-tipped-for-approval/. (Accessed: 6 December 2023).
PMI. (2006) Front-end management, flexibility, and project success. Available at: https://www.pmi.org/ learning/library/front-end-project-managementsuccess-7998#:~:text=The%20front%2Dend%20 phase%20of,get%20the%20strategic%20perspective%20 right. (Accessed: 6 December 2023).
APM. (2019) What is a benefits management framework and how can you use it?. Available at: https://www. apm.org.uk/blog/what-is-a-benefits-managementframework-and-how-can-you-use-it/. (Accessed: 6 December 2023).
Historic England. (no date) Historic England Awards £500k Grant for Park Hill Redevelopment. Available at: https://historicengland.org.uk/whats-new/in-your-area/ yorkshire/park-hill-grant. (Accessed: 6 December 2023).
APM. (2020) Redefining success in project management. Available at: https://www.apm.org.uk/blog/redefiningsuccess-in-project-management/?gad_source=1&gclid= Cj0KCQiA6vaqBhCbARIsACF9M6mHoVsraulUE9bqQT2C uZovzTsEiXGUQAIrQZLw2ow6H_2EtdkxyisaApR9EALw_ wcB. (Accessed: 6 December 2023).
Designing Buildings. (2020) Mixed-use development. Available at: https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/ wiki/Mixed_use_development. (Accessed: 6 December
2023).
Pinto, J.k and Slevin, D.P. (1987) ‘Critical Factors in successful project implementation’, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 34(1) PP.22-27. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260621619_ Critical_Factors_in_Successful_Project_Implementation. (Accessed: 6 December 2023).
Altona, I. (2008) Residential property Development: A Framework for successful Developments. Available at: https://repository.up.ac.za/bitstream/ handle/2263/10816/Altona_Residential(2008). pdf?...%20�%20PDF%20file. (Accessed: 6 December 2023).
Quatrefoils. (2023) 5 Essential Considerations for a successful property Development Project. Available at: https://quatrefoils.co.uk/essentials-for-propertydevelopment/. (Accessed: 6 December 2023).
Keep.eu. (2021) Making Places Profitable – Public and Private Open Spaces. Available at: https://keep. eu/projects/6377/Making-Places-Profitable-Pub-EN/. (Accessed: 6 December 2023).
Splash, U. (2023) US30 - They are pioneers and innovators. Available at: https://www.urbansplash. co.uk/blog/us30-pioneers-and-innovators. (Accessed: 6 December 2023).
ISKALO. (2023) 3 Benefits of mixed-use development. Available at: https://iskalo.com/insights/explore-thebenefits-of-mixed-use-development/. (Accessed: 6 December 2023).
ISKALO. (2023) What is Mixed-use residential development?. Available at: https://iskalo.com/ insights/reasons-to-invest-in-mixed-use-residentialdevelopment/. (Accessed: 6 December 2023).
Urban Splash. (no date) Park Hill Sheffield: Building Conservation. Available at: https://s3-eu-west-1. amazonaws.com/content.urbansplash.co.uk/ documents/park-hill/PARK_BuildingConservation.pdf. (Accessed: 6 December 2023).
Grove, A. (2020) Pictures and prices as 200 new Park Hill flats go on sale. Available at: https://www.examinerlive. co.uk/news/local-news/sheffield-flats-sale-pricespictures-17831225. (Accessed: 6 December 2023).
Statista (2023) Prime office monthly rent UK 2023. Available at: https://www.statista.com/ statistics/323013/uk-real-estate-prime-office-rentprices-in-selected-cities/. (Accessed: 6 December 2023).
LoopNet. (2023) Park Hill: South Street. Available at: https://www.loopnet.co.uk/Listing/South-StSheffield/23920133/. (Accessed: 6 December 2023).
LoopNet. (2023) One Hartshead Square: 15 Angel Street. Available at: https://www.loopnet.co.uk/Listing/15Angel-St-Sheffield/28925724/. (Accessed: 6 December 2023).
Architects’ Journal. (no date) Park Hill-Phase 1. Available at: https://www.ajbuildingslibrary.co.uk/projects/ display/id/4987. (Accessed: 6 December 2023).
13.2 List of Figures
Any figures not referenced are the Authors own.
Fig.1 (Front page): Park Hill Phase 1. (2013). Image. Dezeen. Accessed: 06/12/2023. <https://www.dezeen. com/2013/07/22/park-hill-phase-1-by-hawkinsbrownand-studio-egret-west/>
Fig.10: Studio Egret West. (n.d.). Logo. Studio Egret West. Accessed: 06/12/2023. <https://studioegretwest. com/>
Fig.11: Grant Associates. (n.d.). Logo. Grant Associates. Accessed: 06/12/2023. <https://grant-associates. uk.com/>
Fig.12: Martin Stockley Associates. (n.d.). Logo. North West Place. Accessed: 06/12/2023. <https://www. placenorthwest.co.uk/stockley-rebrands-to-reflectteam-approach/>
Fig.13: Simon Fenton Partnership. (n.d.). Logo. Simon Fenton Partnership. Accessed: 06/12/2023. <http:// www.sfp-mcr.co.uk/>
Fig.20: LEP Framework. (2000). Citation. Miller, R. and Lessard, D.R . Accessed: 23/11/2023. The strategic management of large engineering projects : shaping institutions, risks, and governance. Cambridge, Mass: [MIT Press].
Fig.26: Exterior of Park Hill Phase 1. (n.d.). Image. Urban Splash. Accessed: 06/12/2023. <https://s3-eu-west-1. amazonaws.com/us-website-content/Downloads/parkhill/PARK_Brochure_May13.pdf>
Fig.48: Exterior of Park Hill Phase 1. (n.d.). Image. Urban Splash. Accessed: 06/12/2023. <https://s3-eu-west-1. amazonaws.com/us-website-content/Downloads/parkhill/PARK_Brochure_May13.pdf>
Fig.51: Park Hill Phase 1 Bridge. (n.d.). Image. Urban Splash. Accessed: 06/12/2023. <https://s3-eu-west-1. amazonaws.com/us-website-content/Downloads/parkhill/PARK_Brochure_May13.pdf>
Fig.52 (Back page): Park Hill Phase 1 Facade. (2011). Image. Architectural Review. Accessed: 06/12/2023. <https://www.architectural-review.com/essays/ a-second-chance-for-sheffields-streets-in-the-sky>
