As our feature on regeneration shows, there's an established formula beginning to emerge that ticks all the boxes of the Government's urban agenda: new retail at the heart of the scheme, some leisure, civic facilities and lots of residential.

Chapelfield in Norwich and Whitefriars in Canterbury were among the first to demonstrate that this mixed-use formula works. And now there are literally dozens more such schemes in the pipeline.

But is the public sector looking to load too many costs onto the retail element? In an ideal world each element of a scheme should be self-financing, but in reality that's not the case. A public transport interchange, a library or a civic centre are never going to self-finance, they're the price a developer pays for winning a site. And in some cases they do add to the balance of uses in a scheme.

But it's the residential element of many schemers that's beginning to look shaky. Encouraging people to live in town centres is laudable, but who exactly wants to live above a shopping centre? Shops need servicing out-of-hours and the lorries arrive precisely when the residents are trying to sleep.

Selling off the apartments to a Registered Social Landlord - a housing association in old money - helps tick the social housing box but they'll expect a hefty discount And that means cross-subsidy from the retail element may be required.

With construction costs soaring, and extra costs being loaded onto development, don't be surprised if some developments don't happen.

Graham Parker, Editor

Printer friendly version

Email this article to a friend