Property Development Process - Kings Crescent Estate by Sam Morman

K I N G S

C R E S C E N T

E S TAT E

CRITICAL EVALUATION

Property Development Process Report

Sam Morman

//01

Executive Summary The purpose of this study is to evaluate the property development process of a mega project. Kings Crescent estate in Hackney, London has been defined as a mega project due to key principles outlined in the report. In order to evaluate this project, a critical evaluation framework has been developed, allowing the successes and failures to be identified at each stage of its development. This informed an understanding of the resulting project impact. The masterplan proposal from 2012 outlines a four phased development, with phases 1 & 2 successfully delivered. They have gained recognition due to their success from professional bodies such as the Royal Institute of British Architects and the Mayor of London. Using the critical evaluation framework has allowed the key factors contributing to the projects overall success to be unravelled. The effective governance by Hackney Council as both developer and client, has ensured the proposal was completed to a reputable standard, becoming a great asset for its residents and the surrounding community. National objectives of sustainabilty within the property development proccess are paramount to any major developments success. The approach taken in this case study demonstrates sustainable values through a combination of refurbishment and purposeful construction, developed to the highest possible standards.

Phases 1 & 2

Phases 3 & 4

Figure 1. Phased development (Authors own, 2021) ns

Contents

//00

Introduction 1.1 Project Description ....................................................................... 6 1.2 Kings Crescent as a Megaproject ................................................. 7 1.3 Timeline ........................................................................................ 8

Background Information 2.1 Political ........................................................................................ 10 2.2 Policy .......................................................................................... 10 2.3 Sustainability ............................................................................... 11 2.4 Public Sector Development ....................................................... 11

Critical Evaluation Framework 3.1 General Project Success Factors ................................................. 12 3.2 Developer steps for a successful project .................................... 12 3.3 Megaproject Success Factors ..................................................... 12 3.4 Public Sector Development Success Factors .............................. 12 3.5 Critical Evaluation Framework ..................................................... 13

Stakeholders 4.1 Importance of Stakeholders ....................................................... 14 4.2 Stakeholder Summary Table ....................................................... 15

Front End Planning 5.1 Project Objectives ........... 16

5.5 Procurement .................... 19

5.2 Verification of Need ....... 17

5.6 Planning Policy ................ 20

5.3 Identification of site ........ 18

5.7 Funding Project ............... 22

5.4 Project Team ................... 18

5.8 FEP Evaluation ................. 24

Risk Management 6.1 Risk Diagram ................................................................................ 26 6.2 Risk Management ......................................................................... 27

Project Governance

Project Impact

............................................................. 29

8.1 Socio-economic ............................................................................ 30 8.2 Sustainability ................................................................................. 32

Project Evaluation

Conclusion

Residual Evaluation

References

Figures

................................................................. 34

................................................................................. 36

............................................................. 37

................................................................................. 38

.......................................................................................... 41

//01

Introduction. 1.1 Project Description The original estate was constructed in the late 1960’s and by the 2000’s, half of the estate had been demolished leaving a derelict, brownfield site behind. This was overlooked by the remaining residents creating an unpleasant environment in need of significant regeneration. The combined approach for the development of the site by the architects, Hackney council and the local community, challenged the cost saving, straightforward solution of further demolition and all new construction. The strategy was an intensive refurbishment of the remaining properties and construction of many new homes. The first two phases included 269 new homes and 101 refurbished homes. (Carson, 2021). The Kings Crescent estate masterplan project is divided into four phases. The initial first two phases were constructed consecutively and were completed in 2017. They have been widely recognised as an ‘exemplary regeneration’, as stated by the RIBA, represen-

tatives of the Greater London Authority many other stakeholders (Ash, 2017). It has won RIBA National Award 2018, RIBA London Award 2018 and New London Award Mayor’s Prize 2018 (Carson, 2021). There is a total of 765 homes outlined in the masterplan development with a new public realm and community amenities. The development has a diverse mix of council homes, shared and private ownership flats. Previous proposals in 2007 and 2011 failed to progress leading to a masterplan competition by Hackney Council, won by Karakusevic Architects in 2012 (Carson, 2021). The local authority led development overcame many challenges to be realised, dealing with great amounts of public interest and poor existing site conditions. This critical evaluation has been constructed to demonstrate an understanding of the processes which led to a widely recognised project, challenging the status-quo of housing developments in the UK.

Figure 2. Street perspective (Architects Journal, 2018)

Figure 3. KCA outline masterplan drawing (Henley Halebrown Architects, 2021)

1.2 Kings Crescent Estate - Megaproject

Large scaled developments have particular characteristics that allow a project to be defined as a megaproject. Notable examples which apply to Kings Crescent estate are as following: “long time horizons” (Miller and Lessard, 2000, p51) Several failed applications for the development of the site between 2004 and 2011 were unable to meet the council and communities aspirations for the project. The council stepped in as the developer to ensure the quality, resulting in a local-authority led development. The four phased regeneration was eventually approved in 2012 with a final completion date set for 2023 (Kings Crescent TRA, 2021). “require large capital investment” (Miller and Lessard, 2000, p51) The council have invested over £150 million to get the masterplan finished with the first two phases costing over £60 million (Wilson, 2018). “require spending over and above departmental expenditure limits” (GOV, 2021) The housing budget every three-four years in London is around £2 billion pounds. However with 900 estates in London to maintain, refurbish and provide new housing for a growing population, this is a considerably tight budget (UofTDaniels, 2017). The substantial financial cost of the regeneration of Kings Crescent Estate is therefore a huge investment with the consideration of limited government funding for the local authority.

//02

Project Timeline

1.3

Figure 4. Timeline (Authors own 2021) 8

//02

Project Context 2.1 Political

From 1955 to 1975 the post-war modernist movement saw a change in perception of council homes with almost half the population living in social housing due the mass construction of housing estates (Downie, 2021). The initial construction of the Kings Crescent estate came at the start of the 1970’s where social housing began to be sold off by the government. This was followed by the ‘right to buy’ scheme in 1977, allowing tenants to purchase their properties for a reduced rate, increasing the amount of properties in the private sector. This incrementally reduced the accessibility of social housing over decades. The need for social and affordable housing is a pressing issue in London and the UK. London is the largest city in the UK with a growing population of over 9 million people and is on one of the richest cities in the world (Coudriet, 2019). The saturated property market of London means that developments often become property investment opportunities, attracting global finance. As a result

2.2 Policy

To address the housing issues, Hackney councils Local Development Plan Framework planning policies look to ensure developments provide adequate, sustainable housing solutions. - “The promotion of high standards of design and quality and appropriate density” - “All new affordable homes to meet or exceed the Code for Sustainable Homes minimum requirement.”

result, many of the developments that have faced demolition like Kings Crescent Estate, are replaced by vehicles for pension funds and overseas investments (Clark, 2021). There is now a “generation of Londoners cannot afford their rent and many are forced to live in overcrowded or unsuitable conditions” (London Assembly, 2020). There is a requirement for the government and local authorities to take action. The interest of this case study is in how a public sector development can help to re-evaluate this situation, placing greater emphasis on the necessity of social and affordable housing. 2009 Hackney Housing Needs survey identified the following: “8,799 households currently living in unsuitable housing that need to move and cannot afford to rent or buy market housing” “3,196 households accepted as statutorily homeless currently housed in housing leased temporarily from the private sector” Total requirement of 11,995 (Hackney Council, 2011, p.5) - “Promotion of mixed tenure neighbourhoods to promote social and economic sustainability at a local level, with tenure and size mix informed by assessments of local need and neighbourhood characteristics.”

(Hackney Council, 2010, p.29)

Figure 5. Site conditions (UofTDaniels, 2017)

2.3 Sustainability

2.4 Public Sector Development

“Whatever the level of activity, the public sector undertakes as direct developer, the key aim of their policies and strategies will almost always be consistent with the ambition of longterm sustainability.” (Wilkinson, Reed and Cadman, 2008, p.23)

“At the sub-national level, local authorities typically develop for their own occupation or community (such as housing) use and, to provide local infrastructure” (Wilkinson, Reed and Cadman, 2008, p.22)

As the developer, Hackney Council have direct control over the sustainability of the project. The sustainability objectives can be assessed against many factors such as; the effective use of land, environmental protection and enhancement, location and transport, use of resources and business and community characteristics (Wilkinson, Reed and Cadman, 2008). To measure the success, understanding the impact of the development with regards to these factors is crucial.

A public sector development such as Kings Crescent Estate will have a profound impact on the community and local area. The most important factors in this case are the socio-economic benefits and provision of affordable housing. Successful regeneration developments can stimulate economic growth and encourage future developments in the area, enabling local businesses to thrive (Wilkinson, Reed and Cadman, 2008).

//03

Framework Development 3.1 General Project Success Factors By developing a framework to determine the projects success, this allows the projects property development process to be measured against specific criteria. The value of this, is the ability to compare this project to others of a similar nature, allowing for a more accurate measurement of the successes and failures. A generic framework for any project is set out by the association of project management (apm). They outline 12 key factors; 1. Effective governance ii 2. Setting goals and objectives 3. Commitment to project success 4. Capable sponsors 5. Secure funding 6. Project planning and review

7. Supportive organisation 8. End users and operators 9. Competent project team 10. Aligned supply chain 11. Proven methods and tools 12. Appropriate standards

(apm, 2015, p.4-5) 3.2 Steps for developers to achieve a successful project

Figure 6. Developers steps for success (Radcliffe, Stubbs and Keeping, 2008, p.355)

3.3 Megaproject Success Factors Many of these elements outlined in 3.1 and 3.2 directly apply to megaprojects, however it is important to distinguish which factors are most important in the development of a successful megaproject. Millar and Lessards framework states; 1. Institutional context 2. Project-specific context i 3. Project architecture 4. Managerial regulation (Miller and Lessard, 2000, p.19)

5. Governance structure 6. Project execution 7. Financing 8. Project performance.

3.4 Public Sector Development Success factors Through analysing the context of the development and comparing further literature, key factors that constitute to a public-sector housing developments success have been identified; the ability to conform with planning obligations, achieving sustainability objectives, community engagement, securing funding, environmental considerations stakeholder satisfaction, management of risks, monitor and reviewing project performance. (Pinto and Sleven, 1987) (Miller, Hobbs, 2005) 12

3.5 Critical Evaluation Framework This framework has been developed by the process of analysing a range of sources from lecture materials and the readings previously demonstrated. The components outlined will be used to demonstrate an understanding of the projects successes and failures at each stage.

04 / Stakeholders and Roles Importance Summary

05 / Front-End Planning

Project Objectives Verification of need Identifying a site Project Team Procurement Strategy Planning Policy Project funding Critical evaluation summary

06 / Risk Management Endogenous Exogenous

07 / Project Governance 08 / Project Impact Socio-economic Sustainability

//04

Stakeholders 4.1 Importance of Stakeholders “the term stakeholder refers to those influenced, either directly or indirectly, by the company’s activities (Wilkinson, Reed and Cadman, 2008, p.310).” Every development project must consider the interests from a variety of stakeholders. Stakeholder engagement should be considered throughout the property developments process. As a phased development, Kings Crescent has the ability to frequently evaluate the projects success ensuring the stakeholders needs are met (Ratcliffe, Stubbs, 2009). This evaluation is key to improving future developments. As a public sector development, the existing communities interests should be at the forefront of the project, satisfying their needs and giving them the opportunity for input is quintessential to the projects success. There proved to be a strong working relationship between the developer, Hackney Council and the existing residents and wider community. The approach was a co-produced solution, developed by community consultations throughout the design process (Wilson, 2018). This can be distinguished from typical public housing developments, a brief is simply given by the local authority to the architects outlining a set number of homes (UofTDaniels, 2017). Giving the community an opportunity to correspond directly with the council and the architects contributed to

their engagement with the project. An example of the types of community events allowing them to voice their opinions are as such: - “Enhanced Tenants & Resident’s Association’ (ETRA) meetings with Hackney representatives - Community focused quarterly meetings with TRA committee, Hackney Showroom and residents share ideas on activities, events and building community. - Resident Steering Group monthly meetings with Hackney’s Regeneration Team, architects, builders discussing plans for the next round of new buildings and refurbishment of existing blocks on the South of Kings Crescent Estate” (Kings Crescent TRA, 2019) Gaining validation from the community reflects the project success as it is funded from taxpayers money with government investment. Secondly it has direct implications on the planning process which has the potential to delay the project leading to cost implications for Hackney Council. This project proved innovative with the structure of Hackney Council as primary stakeholder, taking on the role as both developer and client, Hackney Council gained full control of the regeneration. They appointed an accomplished design team with award winning architects Karakusevic alongside Henley Halebrown architects and Muf (Wilson, 2018).

4.2 Stakeholders Summary Stakeholder

Description

Role

Hackney Council

Local Authority

Client and Developer

Higgins Construction Company

Main Contractor

Carrying out construction works and marketing the development

Tibbalds

Planning Consultants

Assisted in developing the successful planning application

Existing Residents

275 Existing Homes

Steering group of residents influenced the proposal

Karakusevic Architects

Primary Architects

Producing detailed design drawings and models for the contractor.

Henley Halebrown

Secondary Architects

Assisted in masterplan proposal

Muf Art/Architects

Landscape Architects

Responsible for the public realm

Peter Brett Associates

Structural Engineer

Worked closely with both architects to ensure structure was suitable

Philip Pank

Quantity Surveyor

Assisted in project managing the project

Figure 7. Table of stakeholders (Authors own 2021)

//05

Front End Planning 5.1 Project Objectives

As a public sector development, the return of the project is in the provision of affordable and social rent housing as necessary infrastructure (Ratcliffe, Stubbs, 2009). The project looks to combat the process of gentrification for regeneration by displacing the existing residents, therefore the strategy of refurbishing the existing council buildings is key to the projects success. Further objectives of phases 1 & 2 included: - A need to provide a minimum of 50% affordable housing - Delivery of 490 new homes - Transformative refurbishment of existing 275 council homes - Shared community gardens between existing and new residents - Public realm focus - Reintegration with the surrounding townscape - Detail design to ensure quality (Carson, 2021)

Figure 8. KCA sketch design drawing (Carson, 2021)

Figure 9. KCA concept sketch (AHR, 2021)

5.2 Verification of Need

“the developer’s skill, knowledge and experience are important in identifying areas of potential growth where market forces will provide increased demand for accommodation and, providing there is no unexpected downturn, demand should exceed supply by the time a development project is completed. (Reed, Sims and Sally, 2014, p. 44)” As previously established, there is a direct shortage of social and affordable housing in Hackney. There is a need for mixed tenures to create diverse communities that provide a safe and well maintained environment for people from a range of social and economic backgrounds (Hackney Council, 2010). Many affordable housing projects were sidelined due to the London 2012 Olympics, therefore projects such as Kings Crescent became even more significant in creating affordable and social rent housing during this period (Donovan 2014). The existing housing estate, as previously established was not fit for the remaining residents with half of the estate demolished. The regeneration project was essential for many reasons such as: - Existing residents were unhappy due to the condition of the buildings - Lack of private outdoor space. - Existing street layout posed issues, creating an unsafe environment for --the community. - General need for affordable and social rent housing in the area. - A need to replace the 357 demolished council homes - The existing council homes were degrading, had no private outdoor --space and were constructed to a poor standard (Hackney, 2021). Addressing these issues with a sustainable solution that fully integrated the estate with the surrounding context was a priority for the council (Hackney, 2021).

//05

5.3 Identifying a Site

As Hackney Council took it upon themselves to carry out development in their area, this set the project up for success. They were in current ownership of the potential site and had established connections with relevant trades in the local area. Examples include real estate agents, planning authorities and occupiers (Reed, Sims and Sally, 2014). The brownfield site was outlined in the local development plan as an area in need of regeneration. With previous failed attempts by private developers not meeting the requirements Hackney Council took on the responsibility to develop the particular site. The process of redeveloping a site can cause difficulties if there is a change in use, e.g. from industrial to residential (Reed, Sims and Sally, 2014). As the site was previously occupied by a housing estate, necessary infrastructure was already in place reducing potential problems in gaining planning permission.

5.4 Project Team

In 2013 Hackney Council devised a competition for a masterplan proposal for Kings Crescent Estate. “Competitions can help prioritise great design from the outset and can be a highly successful procurement model and can; - Drive innovation, stimulate creativity and generate a range of ideas - Deliver opportunities for architects to offer choice to clients - Achieve high-quality design - Facilitate engagement with key stakeholders, community groups and -.the general public - Raise awareness and profile of the project, client and design team” Achieving quality outcomes through well-run competitions - (RIBA, 2021, p.1)

Karakusevic Carson Architects won the commission as lead architects for the masterplan following their proposal. Their credentials were assured as a multi-award winning architecture practise. KCA were already working with the council on a similar development for the Colville Estate masterplan in Hackney. The first stage was successfully completed in 2011 winning the Housing Design Award 2012 - Best Resident Engagement Programme and the best use of GLA Standards (Carson, 2021). The appointment of Henley Halebrown as collaborating architects provided the team with further expertise in architecture and design. Muf architecture/art also contributed to the scheme, focusing on providing a high quality public realm that addressed issues of safety previously highlighted by the local community. The Council’s Regeneration team included one primary and one supporting project manager from Hackney Council to oversee the project, ensuring it meets the required specifications in terms of time scale and quality delivery (Kings Crescent TRA, 2019).

5.5 Procurement Strategy

The choice of procurement method can have a significant impact on the success of a project in relation to the quality of the design, particularly in the case of housing developments. “An additional important factor is the extent to which the developer wishes to pass risk on to the contractor. A public sector developer will be also concerned to achieve value for money to meet the requirement for public accountability (Wilkinson, Reed and Cadman, 2008, p.205).” There was a bespoke agreement between Hackney Council, (the client and developer) and Higgins Construction company (the main contractor). The agreement included a 2011 JCT Design and Build contract. The use of a Joint Contracts Tribunal (JCT) allowed Higgins to carry out the construction to the detailed specifications outlined by Hackney Councils design team (Wilson, 2018).

Figure 11. KCA detail design drawing (RIBA, 2021)

The success of this procurement method is in the appointment of trusted professionals such as the architects. KCA could provide detailed design drawings that would ensure the quality of the build. The design proposals were tendered at RIBA stage E (McLaughlin, 2015), the technical design stage, meaning Higgins Construction were clear on the exact specifications of the build. Without this the quality could likely be compromised. This procurement method is common for housing developments with advantages such as; higher level of price certainty, only dealing with one construction company and reduced time-scales due to overlapping activities (Reed, Sims and Sally, 2014, p.196). The bespoke agreement between Hackney Council and Higgins Construction would also be used to ensure the homes for social rent and shared ownership are handed back to the council after successful completion. The newly constructed private homes were to be sold by Higgins Construction on a lease hold basis (McLaughlin, 2015).

Figure 10. Key stakeholders in the procurement process (Authors own, 2021)

//05 5.6 Planning Policy

The NPPF was referred to as it sets the overarching vision for new housing developments, outlining objectives in terms of housing provision under, “delivering a wide choice of high quality homes” and sustainability targets (NPPF, 2012). The planning gain obligation for this type of development is only through the provision of affordable housing within the new development and refurbishment of existing buildings, as a sustainable model of regeneration. At a local level, the proposal had to meet the criteria set out by the Greater London Authority in the spatial development strategy otherwise known as the “London Plan”. The plan outlines a range of criteria that must be met by the development under categories such as; estate renewal and housing, urban design, tall buildings, inclusive design, children’s play-space, climate change and transport (GLA, 2012). As part of ‘The Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008’ the mayor acted as the local planning authority to assess the planning application for the estate regeneration (GLA, 2012). The project is part of a larger borough-wide estate regeneration in Hackney. The refurbishment of 275 council homes forms part of the overall tenure split; 41% social rent, 10% intermediate, and 49% market sale. This collectively means the estate will be half affordable housing and half private sale (Carson, 2021). The site of the demolished estate was previously occupied by 357 council homes. The plans proposed 376 flats for private sale, 115 shared ownership flats and 79 for social rent. This was required as part of the section 106 agreement (Ash, 2017). With a total loss of 197 homes for social rent, the projects success can be questioned as a public sector development looking to tackle the housing issues identified. The need for affordable housing has been outlined in the evaluation framework as an integral part of the projects success. Other criteria set out by the government to obtain planning permission is the protection of biodiversity (Ratcliffe and Hobbs, 2009). Due to the sites location, neighbouring Clissold park, there were particular statutory consultees who’s consent was needed in order to gain planning permission. Environment Agency - Flood risk assessment had to be carried out on the site with appropriate measures taken to ensure adequate drainage. Natural England - Assessing the impact of the development of protected species and ecology English Heritage - Concerned with the impact of nearby conservations areas. The proposal would have to adhere to national and local policy guidance and the councils specialist conservation advice (The Hackney Society, 2012). All three were addressed promptly and did not result in significant delays to the projects planning acceptance.

Figure 12. Site plan (RIBA 2021)

//05 5.7 Funding the project

The investment required for the acquisition of land was avoided due to the councils existing ownership, reducing the overall costs. However costs that must be considered for any major development that apply to Kings Crescent can be categorised into short and long term. Short Term - Construction Costs - Professional Fees - Promotional Costs Long Term - Repaying Borrowing/Loans

(Reed, 2021)

The short term finance was provided by 2 means; Firstly undisclosed amounts of funding from the Greater London Authority (Ash, 2017). “Direct government financial assistance via funding or grants is usually available to local authorities and/or developers proposing urban regeneration schemes in specific areas of the country. Financial grants are available to developers and the public sector in the UK to develop derelict or rundown inner-city sites and buildings” (Reed, Sims and Sally, 2014, p.70). Secondly, the Hackney Council regeneration programme started in 2011 and includes 2,760 new homes across the borough of Hackney. Kings Crescent Estate is one of largest projects within this. Higgins construction company also invested in the development and were assigned a marketing role to promote the sale of new private properties to potential buyers. The long term financing objectives of the project were the cross-subsidisation of the 50% affordable housing provision through the profits of the private market sale of properties. Additionally, the risk would be spread over the councils property portfolio. If the project did not meet the required investment yield, any profits from other estate regenerations could be invested into future developments such as phases 3 & 4 of Kings Crescent (McLaughlin, 2015).

The risks involved in cross-subsidising the social and affordable housing with the sale of private homes is relatively low in the context of this area of Hackney. Residential facilities have the ability to generate high amounts of revenue from private property sales (Moore, 2018).

Figure 13. Social housing refurbishment (Architects Journal, 2018)

//05

5.8 Front end planning summative evaluation

FEP Component

Successes

Failures

Setting Objectives

Objectivesidemonstrated the potential positive impacts to the community

Potential to provide above the minimum requirement for affordable housing set out in the London Plan

Verification of Need

Steps towards fulfilling the identified requirement for affordable housing in Hackney

Greater requirement for affordable and social rent as opposed to private. Not in proposal numbers however, budget restrictions are considered

Site Selection

The site is in a well connected area, benefits an existing community and was owned by the council

Project Team

Procurement

Planning Policy

Sourcing Project Funding

Higgins construction company Appointment of reliable design had problems with a previous team. Existing relationships with project “made complaints about the architects ensured a strong build quality ranging from mould and noise to infestations of working relationship vermin and water shortages” (Ash, 2017) JCT Design and Build Contract ensured design quality with responsibilities assigned to professionals such as the architects. Provision of affordable housing and sustainability benefits reduced the risks. Appointment of Tibbalds planning consultants provided expertise Gaining government backing and undertaking multiple projects provided access to required funds

Figure 14. Evaluation table (Authors own, 2021)

No significant failures, The site was outlined for need of redevelopment

Form of contract lacks flexibility, changes can be costly. Preparing the detailed brief can be difficult. (Reed, Sims and Sally, 2014, p.196)

Rating 1 - 10

Proposal Inevitability Impacted some existing residents leading to objections

Sufficient funding was obtained effectively.

//06

Risk Management 6.1 Risk Diagram

Figure 15. Adapted from (Flyvbjerg, Bruzelius and Rothengatter, 2003, p.82)

6.2 Risk Management

“The best projects show an ability to manage risks more effectively, which, in turn, contributes to positive outcomes, resulting in safer projects, lower costs, and timely completion of projects” (Virginia, 2013, p.266). To ensure the security and success of a project minimising the risks is essential. The ability to identify potential risks, and the management of such when they occur, is crucial to avoiding failure. Before undertaking a project such as Kings Crescent, a risk management plan would be constructed (Flyvbjerg et al, 2003). The strategies used to manage risks must be supported by the head of an organisations management structure to set the project up for success (Virginia, 2013). Risks of turbulence can be categorised in terms of 2 categories: Endogenous Risks - Events occurring within the project organisation such as contractual disagreements or breakdown in partnerships. Exogenous Risks - The occurrence of events as a result of political, economic and social forces out-with the control of management. (Miller and Lessard, 2000, p.22) Many risks associated with major projects were mitigated in the case of Kings Crescent due to the nature of a local-authority led development. Endogenous risks such as disagreements between client and developer were absent with the council in control. Financial risks were reduced as there is no leakage of value to a private developer. The availability of finance was further improved with access to grants and low in-house management costs (UofTDaniels, 2017). The risk involved in funding the 50% affordable housing, was further mitigated by the councils understanding of the housing market in Hackney. Similar developments such the Colville Estate had been completed by the council, selling

private properties for an average cost of £375,000. Projected rental yields could be assessed. The most threatening risks were in the acceptance of planning approval, as highlighted from previous failed attempts at a regeneration proposal. Objections from the existing residents have the potential to delay the project and subsequently adding to the costs. Planning objections included; the phasing of the development favours new private properties not the existing tenants, overshadowing impacting views out of neighbouring buildings, reducing daylight levels and issues of noise during the lengthy construction phase (GLA, 2012). This was managed effectively through community engagement meetings where the criticisms were heard. The project team were able to make amendments and demonstrate value of the compromises necessary. The successful management of the construction process minimised the impact on the existing residents. They were able to stay in their properties during the refurbishments with residents leaving for a few days at most (GLA, 2012). This also saved cost and pressure on housing facilities as they would have to provide alternative housing. A key issue was the need to replace the demolished social housing and comply with the London Plan policy in order to gain the approval of the planning authority (the Mayor). Profits would have to be reinvested into the affordable and social rent housing. By ensuring the quality of construction and material finishes were of a high standard, this reduced the risk of the private sale properties not selling for the required value. The quality of the build resulted in flats selling for up to £2.95 million enabling the successful cross subsidisation of social and affordable housing (Moore, 2018).

//07

Governance

7.1

ited from the management structure. In the absence of a private developer, who would typically take a minimum of 25% of return on capital employed with higher rates in London (Savills, 2017). The money could be used elsewhere. Firstly, the provision of affordable housAs a public sector project using gov- ing and secondly, in the overall quality ernment funding, the governance of and sustainability of the build. Efforts the project sets out to ensure that were made to enforce greater buildtaxpayers see a return on their invest- ing standards with the new buildings ment. The wider community should achieving approximately 85% passive benefit from this regeneration project house standards (UofTDaniels, 2017). as opposed to simply a profit making The quality of the materials used also investment from a private developer reflects the possibilities this govern(Virginia, 2013). The quality of the de- ance structure presented with an exsign benefited from successful govern- tended budget. The overall developance, firstly with the appointment of ment has inherent sustainable motives three collaborating architecture prac- of a building made to last. tises giving the project a dynamic input As a phased development, an evaluaof design expertise. tion was carried out after the construcThe councils delegation of responsibil- tion of the initial phase before granting ity through decisions such as the pro- permission for the same design team curement method, reduced their risks to embark on future phases, allowing and overall uncertainty as a developer for monitoring and reviewing to take (Reed, Sims and Sally, 2014). The de- place. “Before commencing consired quality was achieved by the archi- struction on the final phases the mastects producing detailed design draw- terplan principles within the outline ings and facade models for tender. planning consent were revisited, to This avoided issues such as incorrect address consultation comments, reestimated costings and problems with sulting in a separate detailed planning the construction team misinterpreting application being submitted” (Tibbathe design intent (UofTDaniels, 2017). lds, 2021) The quality of the design directly benef“Fundamental to the success of megaprojects is the building of an active public-private partnership that aligns with the goals of the owner to deliver a project in the public interest” (Virginia, 2013, p.113).

//08

Socio-economic Impact 8.1

At a local level, the development has had a significant impact on the lives of the new and existing members of the community. “There’s a feeling of things happening, of life coming back to Kings Crescent again,” says resident Jill Walker-Murrain. “And it makes me smile. I love it. We’d been fighting for the regeneration for so many years and a lot of us were quite worn out.” - Walker-Murrain Resident for 38 years (Moore, 2018) Using criteria set out in the National Design Guide that looks at how developments can create “beautiful, enduring and successful places” (Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, 2021). The evaluation of Kings Crescents socio-economic success was measured against the 10 characteristics of well designed places outlined in figure 16.

The quality of life for its residents is directly improved through a contemporary model of sustainable estate regeneration. There is diversity created from mixed tenures. The mixed public spaces in figure 17 highlight the benefits to the character and social aspects of the place. Refurbishment ensured the existing character was retained. There is an emphasis on creating high quality public spaces that prioritises people over vehicles. It provides the residents with pleasant stop and rest points, green spaces, community growing space and play streets and parks in a safe environment. Future development in stages 3 & 4 look to build on the existing successes. There will be new civic and social infrastructure implemented with a community centre, workspaces and shops. This will be beneficial for the estate residents and wider community (HDA, 2020).

As a local authority led development, the use of community input to inform the scheme was essential to the success of the development. “Local communities can play a vital role in achieving well-designed places and buildings and making sure there is a relationship between the built environment and quality of life.” (Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, 2021) The consultations with residents throughout, allowed for the interests of the residents to directly influence integral components of the project, from the configuration of streets down to the detailed specification of home interiors (Wilson, 2018)

Figure 16. Characteristics (Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, 2021)

Figure 17. Amenities (Carson, 2021)

//08

Sustainability Impact 8.2

A brief description of sustainable property development by the Green Building Council of Australia: “A sustainable property industry will balance environmental, social and economic issues to ensure a viable and valuable industry for future generations. Building green is an opportunity to use resources efficiently while creating healthier buildings that improve occupant health and wellbeing.” (GBCA cited by Wilkinson, Reed and Cadman, 2008, p.9)

Piccadily line are roughly 1km from the site as accessible means of transport (GLA, 2012). Increasing density is also required to tackle to housing situation in London. This is addressed with effective use of land, significantly increasing the number of homes with increased story heights of up to 12 stories for the new buildings.

The strategy of refurbishment “can help to maintain a sense of place whilst reducing the creation of waste As a housing regeneration project, the as well as increasing the period over social and economic benefits previ- which embodied carbon is amortised ously outlined contribute significantly (Wilkinson, Reed and Cadman, 2008).” to the sustainability of the community. The area, previously known as a red To help rectify previous demolition, the light district, attracted crime and anti- approach taken in this project is essensocial behaviour (UofTDaniels, 2017). tial for environmental reasons. “approxThe effective use of land has resulted imately 40% of the UK’s emissions in a re-formed community, eradicat- are attributable to the built environing these issues. The measures taken ment, while construction, demolition, in the major transformation of existing and excavation activities generate apbuildings, has helped diffuse a local proximately 60% of the UK’s waste” disparity between the residents of the (UKGBC, 2021). Every building has council estates and new buildings, re- inherent emissions which are difficult inforced with the public realm transfor- to offset and should be avoided. The improved efficiency of a new building mation (Vobster, 2021). is often the argument for demolition The re-use of a brownfield site with ex- however roughly 50% of the carbon is isting amenities can reduce the strain emitted during the construction of reson transport that may be required in idential buildings (UKGBC, 2021). This suburban developments (Wilkinson, approach sets a strong precedent for Reed and Cadman, 2008). Two under- future approaches to council development regeneration projects. ground stations that connect to the

But Hackney Council has succeeded where at least three other housing associations failed – it has found a way to regenerate Kings Crescent that is financially viable and socially valuable.

source demonstrates many housing estates that have succombed to gentrification for regeneration such Heygate Estate. The demolition of social housing for privately sold properties is detremental to the existing community. The nature of shared ownerships within a single estate development creates diversity. Legislation also states that there must not be a clear distinction in the physical appearance of the range of properties from privately owned to public such as social rent properties (get source to back up).

The quality of the design is roughly 85% of a passive house proeprty, but on 30% less than it would typically cost. £2400 a meter to build. It’s expensive but made to last.

//09

Summative Project Evaluation

Framework

Stakeholders

Front End Planning

Risk Management

Project Governance

Project Impact

Success Points

- Well managed relationship between the developer of the local community - Project design team committed to the project and engaged with community - Architects and contractors agreement improved quality and efficiency - The site selection was key to the regeneration of this area, providing a multitude of benefits for the existing residents. - Strong project team that enabled successful delegation of responsibility - Sourced finance effectively - Initial significant risk of obtaining planning was tackled effectively through competition which resulted in a high quality design. - Endogenous risks managed effectively, many typical developer risks mitigated through FEP e.g. choice of procurement method. - Monitoring the success through community consultations reduced risks - Hackney council maintained stakeholder engagement throughout with meetings e.g. steering group monthly meetings - The management structure reduced costs and leakage of value, benefiting the projects quality and therefore the community - All community stakeholders benefited from improved safety of the area, improvement to existing residents homes and providing homes for new members of the community - Collectively contributes positively to the economy and provides social infrastructure with a range of amenities, some outlined for future phases. - Sustainable approach of refurbishment demonstrated possibilities for future developments

Unsuccessful Points

- Some existing residents left unsatisfied with the impact of new buildings

- Little evidence of assessment of options, however competition process perhaps addressed this

- Higgins construction previous issues in other projects were potentially not considered when appointing them as the main contractor

- Internal conflicts likely occurred however there was no information available suggesting this was a major issue.

- Did not fully replace the number of social rent homes previously demolished - Residents have had to endure a construction site for long periods of time

Rating

Figure 18. Summative Evaluation table (Authors own, 2021)

2 forms of recognition that support the success of the developers contribution and the project impact were nominations for the London Planning Awards 2018. 1. Best Borough Led Project 2. Best New Place to Live (Carson, 2018) 35

//10

Summative Project Evaluation Conclusion The analysis and evaluation of Kings Crescent estate using an informed critical evaluation framework, has evidenced the conclusion that this is an example of a successful megaproject throughout the property development process. The front end planning process minimised the potential risks and resulted in very little turbulence. By ensuring there was adequate funding, a strong project team and effective procurement strategy, this allowed a project of a large scale to be delivered efficiently on time and constructed to a high standard. The project particularly excelled in terms of its governance. As a local-authority led development, the allocation of responsibilities to trusted professionals and the decisions made by Hackney Council ensured the housing estate was constructed to precise standards. Throughout the development process there was a continuous consideration of their most valuable stakeholder, the existing community. This co-produced development has indefinitely benefited the local community which has been identified as an essential component of a successful public sector development. Although some evidence suggested there perhaps could have been a greater provision of affordable housing to be considered ‘exemplary’, by providing over half the development as affordable and social housing, this project is an overall success. Assessing the outcomes against other case studies of a similar nature, this conclusion can be further evidenced. Architects for Social Housing (Ash) highlighted the pressing issue of social housing being directly replaced by majority private sector homes. Each case provided a significantly smaller split of tenures than Kings Crescent estate. Hygene estate - 1,200 council homes demolished Replacement - 2,453 private sale and rent flats, 82 social rent. Ferrier estate - 1,906 social rent homes demolished Replacement - 2,490 properties for private sale, 1,358 for private rent, 550 shared ownership, 0 social rent Woodberry Down estate - 1,980 council homes demolished Replacement - 3,292 private sale, 1,358 private rent, 2,265 affordable properties,1,088 of this required to be social rent. (Ash, 2017)

//11

Residual Evaluation Assumptions

1 bedroom flat sq m = 50 sq m 2 bedroom flat sq m = 75 sq m 3 bedroom flat sq m = 100 sq m

A: Gross Value of Development (GDV) 4.5 ha site with planning permission in principle for 490 flats priced accordingly 90 x 1 bedroom flats @ £395,000 each = £35.55 million 200 x 2 bedroom flats @ £480,000 = £96 million 200 x 3 bedroom flats @ £640,000 = £128 million Total cost of flats = £259.55 million Less 4% selling costs (agents + legal fees) = £1,038,200 Net Proceeds of sale = £258,511,800

B: Costs of Development

a) Site preparation = £112,500 b)Building costs 1 bed flats (gross area 50 sq m x 90 @ £2,400 / sq m) = £10.8 million 2 bed flats (gross area 75 sq m x 200 @ £2,400 / sq m) = £36 million 3 bed flats (gross area 100 sq m x 200 @ £2,400 / sq m) = £48 million Total building cost = £94.8 million c) Internal roads and pavements = £2,475,000 d) Landscaping £1,350,000 e) Architects / QS / Engineer fees 12% of 98,737,500 = £11,848,500 f) Finance cost = £1,134,252 Total development costs = £12,982,752 A: GDV = £258,511,800 B: Costs of Development = £12,982,752 C: Developer Profit @ 20% of net GDV = £51,702,360 Total cost and profit (B + C) = £64,685,112 D: Residual Amount for Land Completed value of the project - All costs including profit = price to be paid for the land = £193,826,688 - 3% agents and legal costs Price for Land = £5,814,800

/ / 12

References APM, (2015). Conditions for Project Success. [online] Apm.org.uk. Available at: <https://www.apm.org.uk/media/1621/conditions-for-project-success_web_final_0.pdf> [Accessed 12 October 2021]. APM, (2021). Dynamic Conditions for Project Success. [online] Apm.org.uk. Available at:<https://www.apm.org.uk/media/50404/apm-dynamic-conditions-for-project-success-2021.pdf> [Accessed 3 November 2021]. Ash, (2017). An Exemplary Regeneration: King’s Crescent Estate. [online] Architects for Social Housing (ASH). Available at: <https://architectsforsocialhousing.co.uk/2017/04/14/an-exemplary-regeneration-kings-crescent-estate/> [Accessed 14 October 2021]. Carson, K., (2021). Kings Crescent Estate Masterplan | Karakusevic Carson Architects. [online] Karakusevic-carson.com. Available at: <http://karakusevic-carson.com/work/kings-crescent-estate-masterplan> [Accessed 15 October 2021]. Clark, D., (2021). Rough sleepers in London 2020, by age | Statista. [online] Statista. Available at: <https://www.statista.com/statistics/381375/london-homelessness-rough-sleepers-by-age/> [Accessed 5 November 2021]. Coudriet, C., (2019). Richest Cities In The World: The Top 10 Cities With The Most Billionaires. [online] Forbes. Available at: <https://www.forbes.com/sites/ cartercoudriet/2019/03/07/richest-cities-in-the-world-the-top-10-cities-withthe-most-billionaires/> [Accessed 12 November 2021]. Donovan, T., (2014). Olympic Park affordable housing ‘trade off’. [online] BBC News. Available at: <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-25749691> [Accessed 22 November 2021]. Downie, I., (2021). overview of social housing in the 70s. [online] Inkpendownie. co.uk. Available at: <https://www.inkpendownie.co.uk/a-very-brief-overview-ofsocial-housing-in-the-70s.html> [Accessed 12 November 2021]. Flyvbjerg, B., Bruzelius, N. and Rothengatter, W., (2003). Megaprojects and risk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. GLA, (2012). planning report Kings Crescent Estate. [online] Mayor of London, London Assembly. Available at: <https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/ public%3A//public%3A//PAWS/media_id_190481///kings_crescent_estate_report.pdf> [Accessed 22 November 2021]. GOV, (2021). Major Projects Authority. [online] GOV.UK. Available at: <https:// www.gov.uk/government/groups/major-projects-authority> [Accessed 18 October 2021].

Hackney Council, (2010). Better Homes, Places and Opportunities Hackney Housing Strategy 2010 - 2015. [online] London, p.29. Available at: <https://drive.google. com/file/d/1cQSh8IVN5tZu0EeBR7NSlOckLdaO8amY/view> [Accessed 9 November 2021]. Hackney Council, (2011). Strategic Housing Market Assessment. Hackney Strategic Housing Market Assessment Update. [online] Swansea, p.6. Available at: <https:// drive.google.com/file/d/1loQjciyRKYaR-zuHobGJuuUxnU53G9Zl/view> [Accessed 13 November 2021]. Hackney, (2021). Kings Crescent. [online] Hackney. Available at: <https://hackney. gov.uk/kings-crescent-estatehttps://hackney.gov.uk/kings-crescent-estate> [Accessed 19 October 2021]. HDA, (2020). Kings Crescent Estate Phases 3&4 - Housing Design Awards. [online] Housing Design Awards. Available at: <https://hdawards.org/scheme/7110_ scheme/> [Accessed 26 November 2021]. Kings Crescent TRA, 2019. Events and meetings. [online] Kingscrescent.org. Available at: <https://kingscrescent.org/events-and-meetings/> [Accessed 30 October 2021]. Kings Crescent TRA, (2021). About – Kings Crescent. [online] Kingscrescent.org. Available at: <https://kingscrescent.org/about/> [Accessed 10 October 2021]. London Assembly, (2020). Tackling London’s Housing Crisis. [online] Mayor of London, London Assembly. Available at: <https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/ housing-and-land/tackling-londons-housing-crisis> [Accessed 18 November 2021]. McLaughlin, G., (2015). Estate Regeneration sourcebook. [online] Urbandesignlondon.com. Available at: <https://www.urbandesignlondon.com/documents/26/Estate-Regen-Sourcebook-Web-Version.pdf> [Accessed 22 November 2021]. Miller, R. & Hobbs, J. B. (2005). Governance regimes for large complex projects. Project Management Journal Miller, R. and Lessard, D., (2000). The Strategic Management of Large Engineering Projects. Cambridge: MIT Press Ministry of Housing Communities & Local Government, (2012). National Planning Policy Framework. London. Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, (2021). National Design Guide. Planning practice guidance for beautiful, enduring and successful places. [online] London: Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. Available at: <https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/ attachment_data/file/962113/National_design_guide.pdf> [Accessed 26 November 2021]. 39

Moore, R., (2018). Council housing: how Hackney has raised the game. [online] the Guardian. Available at: <https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2018/ sep/23/council-housing-hackney-colville-estate-kings-crescent-stoke-newington-london> [Accessed 25 October 2021]. Pinto, J. and Sleven, D., (1987). (PDF) Critical Factors in Successful Project Implementation. [online] ResearchGate. Available at: <https://www.researchgate. net/publication/260621619_Critical_Factors_in_Successful_Project_Implementation> [Accessed 1 December 2021], p.22-27 Ratcliffe, J. and Stubbs, M., (2009). Urban planning and real estate development. London: Taylor & Francis e-Library, p174-177 , p.309 Reed, R., Sims and Sally, (2014). Property development. 6th ed. Routledge Reed, R., (2021). Property development. 7th ed. New York: Routledge, pp.120 - 126. RIBA, (2021). ACHIEVING QUALITY OUTCOMES THROUGH WELL-RUN COMPETITIONS. [ebook] London: RIBA. Available at: <https://www.architecture.com/ knowledge-and-resources/resources-landing-page/design-matters-achieving-quality-outcomes-through-well-run-competitions> [Accessed 24 November 2021]. RIBA, (2021). Kings Crescent Estate Phases 1 and 2. [online] RIBA Architecture.com. Available at: <https://www.architecture.com/awards-and-competitions-landing-page/awards/riba-regional-awards/riba-london-award-winners/2018/kings-crescent-estate-phases-1-and-2> [Accessed 22 October 2021]. Savills, (2017). Residential Development Margin. [online] London Government. Available at: <https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/app17_savills_residential_development_margin.pdf> [Accessed 11 November 2021]. The Daniels Faculty of Architecture, Landscape, and Design, (2017). “A New Era of Public Housing” with Paul Karakusevic. [video] Available at: <https://www. youtube.com/watch?v=DlTEVbmcOl4&t=4191s> [Accessed 3 November 2021]. The Developer, (2021). Peter Barber: Housing without poor doors. [image] Available at: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLEfxMDWs7M&t=447s> [Accessed 9 October 2021]. The Hackney Society, (2012). [online] The Hackney Society. Available at: <https:// hackney.hk/2012/1293/info#sec_EssentialInfo> [Accessed 14 November 2021]. Tibbalds, (2021). King’s Crescent, Hackney. [online] Tibbalds. Available at: <https://tibbalds.co.uk/work/projects/kings-crescent-hackney> [Accessed 1 November 2021].

UKGBC, (2021). The choice between demolition or reuse: developer insights - UKGBC - UK Green Building Council. [online] UKGBC - UK Green Building Council. Available at: <https://www.ukgbc.org/news/the-choice-between-demolition-or-refurbishment-developer-insights/> [Accessed 4 December 2021]. Virginia, G., (2013). Megaproject Management: Lessons on Risk and Project Management from the Big Dig. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Vobster, (2021). Kings Crescent. [online] Vobster Architectural. Available at: <https:// www.vobsterarchitectural.co.uk/case-studies/kings-crescent> [Accessed 1 December 2021]. Wilkinson, S., Reed, R. and Cadman, D., (2008). Property development. 5th ed. London: Routledge, p.310. Wilson, R., (2018). Democratic regeneration: Kings Crescent Estate. [online] The Architects’ Journal. Available at: <https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/buildings/democratic-regeneration-kings-crescent-estate> [Accessed 22 October 2021]. Wood, A., (2020). Kings Crescent Estate: “There’s a feeling of life coming back”. [online] The Developer. Available at: <https://www.thedeveloper.live/places/places/ kings-crescent-estate-theres-a-feeling-of-life-coming-back> [Accessed 22 October 2021].

//12

Figures Figure 1. Phased development. (Authors own, 2021) Figure 2. Street perspective. (Architects Journal, 2018) Democratic regeneration: Kings Crescent Estate. [image] Avaiable at: <https:// www.architectsjournal.co.uk/buildings/democratic-regeneration-kings-crescent-estate> [Accessed 7 October 2021]. Figure 3. KCA outline masterplan drawing. (Henley Halebrown Architects, 2021) [image] Available at: <https://henleyhalebrown.com/journal/kings-crescent-estate-phases-34-one-archellos-best-projects-2020/> [Accessed 8 November 2021]. Figure 4. Timeline. (Authors own, 2021, p.8) Figure 5. Site conditions. (UofTDaniels, 2017) The Daniels Faculty of Architecture, Landscape, and Design. [image] Available at: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlTEVbmcOl4&t=4191s> [Accessed 10 November 2021]. Figure 6. Developers steps for success (Ratcliffe, Stubbs, 2008, p.355) Ratcliffe, J. and Stubbs, M., 2009. Urban planning and real estate development. London: Taylor & Francis e-Library Figure 7. Table of stakeholders (Authors own 2021) Figure 8. KCA sketch design drawing (Carson, 2021) [image] Available at: <http://karakusevic-carson.com/work/kings-crescent-estate-masterplan> [Accessed 8 November 2021]. Figure 9. KCA concept sketch (AHR, 2021) AHR, 2021. [image] Available at: <https://www.ahr.co.uk/Kings-Crescent-Esate> [Accessed 17 November 2021]. Figure 10. Key stakeholders in the procurement process (Authors own, 2021) Figure 11. KCA detail design drawing (RIBA, 2021) [image] Available at: <https://www.architecture.com/awards-and-competitions-landing-page/awards/riba-regional-awards/riba-london-award-winners/2018/kings-crescent-estate-phases-1-and-2> [Accessed 8 November 2021]. Figure 12. Site plan (RIBA 2021) [image] Available at: <https://www.architecture.com/awards-and-competitions-landing-page/awards/riba-regional-awards/riba-london-award-winners/2018/kings-crescent-estate-phases-1-and-2> [Accessed 8 November 2021]. Figure 13. Social housing refurbishment (Architects Journal, 2018) Democratic regeneration: Kings Crescent Estate. [image] Avaiable at: <https:// www.architectsjournal.co.uk/buildings/democratic-regeneration-kings-crescent-estate> [Accessed 7 October 2021]. Figure 14. Evaluation table (Authors own, 2021) Figure 15. Adapted from (Flyvbjerg, Bruzelius and Rothengatter, 2003, p.82) Flyvbjerg, B., Bruzelius, N. and Rothengatter, W., 2003. Megaprojects and risk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Figure 16. Characteristics (Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, 2021) Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, 2021. National Design Guide. Planning practice guidance for beautiful, enduring and successful places. [online] London: Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. Available at: <https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/ attachment_data/file/962113/National_design_guide.pdf> [Accessed 26 November 2021]. Figure 17. Amenities (Carson, 2021) Carson, K., 2021. Kings Crescent Estate Masterplan | Karakusevic Carson Architects. [online] Karakusevic-carson.com. Available at: <http://karakusevic-carson. com/work/kings-crescent-estate-masterplan> [Accessed 15 October 2021]. Figure 18. Figure 18. Summative Evaluation table (Authors own, 2021)

Sam Morman 160006076 University of Dundee 2021 Property Development Process Report UP1005 MArch with Urban Planning

Property Development Process - Kings Crescent Estate

Articles inside

References

8.2 Sustainability

6.2 Risk Management

8.1 Socio-economic

Figures

Conclusion

Residual Evaluation