ACES NATIONAL CONFERENCE Realising the value of land and local government reform 25 September 2025 The Guildhall, Bath
- Peter Gregory and Betty Albon
- Oct 29
- 23 min read
 | Peter is a member of the North West branch of ACES and Past President 2019-20. He was the first ACES’ President to preside over an ACES virtual conference. |
This report is a summary of the presentations made at ACES Conference held at The Guildhall, Bath. More detailed articles of some presentations are and will be included in this and Winter editions of ACES’ Terrier. My sincere thanks to Peter for producing a comprehensive resume and helping the Editor considerably. |
President welcome and opening remarks – Dan Meek
Dan welcomed the delegates to a packed room. He referenced the reception and gala dinner held the evening previously in the Roman Baths and Pump Room, saying what a privilege it was to have been in that setting. Thanks to ACES’ corporate partners Norse, Lambert Smith Hampton, Avison Young and Carter Jonas, without whose enduring support, the conferences wouldn’t happen in the way they do.
This morning’s session focuses on realising the value of land. Having worked with many county councils, district councils and indeed even some town councils, I am aware of the extraordinary amount of land that is owned by the public sector. I am also aware that some of the land may well be underutilised and authorities may not fully understand why they own it, let alone what to do with it. This uncertainty often leads to decisions to sell to ‘make a quick buck’. This morning’s sessions will explore how we can make better use of such land and identify ways of improving the economic, the environmental and even social value that can be gained from it.
This afternoon, we will be concentrating on aspects of Local Government Review and devolution.
Land use in changing times – Jeremy Moody, CAAV
CAAV is the central association of agricultural valuers which acts to advise farmers, landowners, local and national government, environmental organisations and others in the rural economy; to make representations to government; to give practical advice to decision-makers; to maintain an overview of all issues. CAAV has existed as a national body since 1910. It was founded in times of agricultural ferment before WWI, and we find ourselves again in times of agricultural ferment.
We are in an unprecedented decade of significant change – and on so many fronts: government policies, climate change, changing geopolitical and supply chain and other commercial conditions. These forces impact upon families, estates, council ownerships, and environmental charities, but the changes need to be managed.
Many factors determine land use – none more so than the choices of the occupiers of the land. These changes are accompanied by a general reduction in interest by the government in the environment.
DEFRA is looking to produce a land use framework, which has been out to consultation. Broadly, it asks – to meet our environmental goals, what will be our land uses by 2050? There’s a view that 9% of rural England needs to be managed primarily for nature, but that doesn’t stop it being used for agriculture. That still leaves 60% predominantly for farming, often important in AONBs and national parks eg vineyards on the South Downs; high value farms in East Anglia and the Lincolnshire Wolds.
Land use is driven by its physical capability, economics, planning policies and decisions, public policies, CPO powers, past uses (eg 700,000 acres of wartime airfields), and owners’ choices. There are competing options such as development, food, leisure (900,000 acres of golf courses), equestrian (200,000 acres for horses), MoD, solar farms and bio energy (300,000 acres under biofuel crops, which are much less efficient than solar panels), woodland, housing.
Choices are driven by suitability and location, eg solar needs the availability of a good grid connection, housing locations by where people want to live, farmland dependent upon productivity. Overall, there is the commitment of “30 by 30”. This gives four years left to achieve it. As a result, the DEFRA framework is likely to miss the point – successful land use policy needs trade-offs.
What are the public policy objectives in trading off real head to head choices? There are pressures on land use choices, with less underpinning by government. There are economic and technological changes; growing social constraints on farming around agrochemicals and animal welfare; growing populations; climate change, with extremes and record-breaking (impact and mitigation measures – adapting and developing resilience in challenging weather conditions); government targets (eg goals for 1.5m houses and 95% renewable energy by 2030).
Risk is becoming less predictable, with weather bringing increasing challenges. Insurance premiums are increasing and may become unsustainable, not helped by significant development in flood plains. Additionally, insurance companies are competing for business which leaves them exposed. In the USA, Jeremy was aware of insurance now at 5% of disposable family income and some risks will not be insured against – storm and flood. In UK, historic flood cover may be withdrawn by 2039. Mitigation schemes can provide only temporary relief.
Changes also bring new opportunities, eg viticulture moving further northward and to higher hills; olive growing in Essex. Between 2018 and 2023, around £500m was invested in vineyards and winepresses; there are experiments with apricot and almond groves; watermelons in the Wash. However, new pests are also arriving. More sophisticated eco-systems are developing with new technologies to manage land at risk.
Managing water – significant land areas are in Flood Zone 3. There are huge costs for flood protection (in an extreme case, £100m to protect 2,000 residents). Do we have to say people live in vulnerable places at their own risk? Cheaper solutions can include improving land drainage, or return to the historic answer of using water meadows for wetland farming (Norfolk reed, celery). Or build more reservoirs. At a business level, you must adapt to what is coming.
Away from the UK other countries are facing huge challenges – drought, loss of grassland, baked soil, wildfires (including developer-induced), snow melt, floods, rising sea levels, soil erosion. Countries are becoming agriculturally unviable, a situation that will hit the UK in decades to come.
Forestry is not a big land use in England. The real driver is commercial, and timber is going to be a significant material for a low carbon economy, to replace concrete and steel, rather than for carbon sequestration (take a look at Sweden). Trees come with risks – disease, storm, fire, deferred income.
Environmental Issues are not a key government priority. Inherited targets are under review, eg Corry Review.
Nutrient neutrality – proposals coming forward in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill
Nature recovery – UK is a nature depleted country, with pressures on the environment. We should prioritise the sustainable ecologies that we need.
Labour Proposals:
Pro-development for housing and infrastructure - willing to bulldoze the planning system in exchange for growth, or exchange habitat destruction through the Nature Restoration Fund
Housing challenge – to resolve social and economic problems
New National Planning Framework – challenging the greenbelt; more intervention in the planning process; dealing with opposition to land use change
Enhancement of CPO powers
Looking at rewards available to landowners.
Energy and planning –flashpoint for resistance, eg pylons in eastern England, solar farms, data centres, AI Growth Zones.
The clock is ticking due to the government’s finite life. Everything takes time. The government is feeling a lack of power and finding greater tensions than expected. Growth and development remain key goals – can government also afford environmental goals? The last time UK built 300,000 houses in a year there was much less environmental law, which is perceived as a blocker.
If the government means what it is trying to do, it will mean “clipping the wings” of Natural England and the Environment Agency, and changing the role of the new Office for Environmental Protection.
Rural land will move towards food production under cover and vertical farm technology; focus on commodity farming, value engineering, and diversification of income streams. So there are big choices on the way. Subsidy regimes will no longer direct farming. The UK is already a less competitive bidder in global food supply.
Questions
Q. How do the issues described work through into land values and market confidence?
A.Taking the cue from lenders, the future of land values is relatively secure. Smallholdings are left largely unaffected by the changes. Location is very important to individuals. Agricultural land remains a haven for foreign money, which is focused upon larger land areas in particular areas, eg eastern England. The UK remains attractive internationally.
Values will be sustained by ongoing pressures for housing, the data centre boom, the need for developing infrastructure (rail and highways).
Q. What has been the impact of “The Clarkson Effect”? Is inheritance tax putting small farms out of business?
A.The late 1990s saw record public benevolence towards farmers and farming, fuelled by eg foot and mouth. Humanising farming has been given more shape by the Clarkson effect. Inheritance tax is likely to see a strategic shift where farm businesses decapitalise themselves through the use of tenancies, contractors, and out-sourcing of their own services to others.
Estate strategies and competing land use challenges, Carter Jonas
Biodiversity Net Gain - David Alborough
BNG is 18 months on from implementation (12 February/2 April 2024 for small sites); while it is moving, it’s not as quickly as desired. The speed of the planning process means that not many BNG units have yet come through the system. Also, developers are focusing more on the on-site BNG within the BNG ‘hierarchy’. And after a year, government is now meddling with consultations issued in May 2025 (BNG for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects; BNG for minor, medium and brownfield development). The exemption rules are also being widely abused.
The value of BNG pricing is being driven by the relative scarcity of habitat types (see table). A grassland scheme attracts a lot of suppliers – it looks like farming - while some rarer habitats can be expensive to develop, eg watercourses, individual trees, wet woodlands, deciduous woodland, floodplain wetland. There is value in open mosaic habitats, such as abandoned land perhaps allocated for industrial use 10 years ago, but which was never developed, and which can be difficult to replace.
Habitat banking is the right thing to do. It will bring money forward to invest, provide a secure income stream and long-term funding, as well as having a positive impact on nature.
But how is it decided who gets to use land and for what purpose? BNG fixes land use for 30 years, and will be contrary to, eg pressures for solar, cemetery expansion, tree planting, development sites, playing field strategies. Organisations need to be clear on their objectives and priorities – eg making money, countering climate change, protecting the environment and nature.
Land use obligations for 30 years can be frustrated very easily by eg third party rights, sporting rights, easements/wayleaves, mineral rights, planning designations, legal rights, all of which can reduce the amount of land available for BNG.
Money can be made from BNG but only over the long-term. Part of the income needs to be committed to management and financial systems. Borrowing against a BNG scheme is not possible. Currently there are no formal ways of valuing BNG credits as there is currently no market.
Key takeaways –
BNG is a tool, not an answer to everything
There is money to be made, especially if you can supply the rarer habitats
Alignment with wider objectives is required, eg space management, farming
Pro-active portfolio management is needed as habitats will evolve without intervention – abandoned land cannot provide BNG
Do not try to clear land on development sites to make achieving 10% uplift easier – regulations require you to assess habitat condition in January 2021.
Rural landlord and tenant collaboration (case studies) - Jack Mitchell
Jack went through a number of case studies demonstrating how negotiations and collaboration between rural landlords and tenants could deliver opportunities for realising positive values for all parties. The case studies were examples of tenancies held under the Agricultural Holdings Act (AHA). Sometimes a pending rent review can be the stimulus for the parties to get together. In one case, farm buildings were in a poor state of repair and redundant for modern farming methods and potential retirement enabled mutually beneficial discussions and agreements to surrender parts which could then be converted to residential use and the farmer to relocate to a new house still on the farm.
Sometimes negotiations reach stalemate, and the intervention of a rural practice surveyor can resolve differences. In one case of bare land where a farm stewardship scheme was just coming to an end but the land was not required for farming, a surrender payment can be agreed, but deferred until the land was sold, to be shared between the parties on agreed percentages.
In some cases, negotiations to meet parties’ aspirations can include a AHA lease surrender and swap to a farm business tenancy which is more flexible for the landlord and gives rights to the farmer to remain in alternative residential accommodation which has less onerous repairing liabilities.
Rural Planning - Nicola Quick
Nicola outlined some case studies of Class Q Permitted Development Rights for the conversion of agricultural buildings to dwelling houses. This avoids making a full planning application and there is a development bias for this PD, which are excluded from BNG. Additionally, often issues of phosphate deposits are avoided. Often these farm buildings are both redundant and in poor condition, but attractive as refurbishment projects in the private market. They will often involve negotiations between landlord and farmer on tenancy amendments.
Nicola described three case studies, two examples of Class Q PDR applications which consisted of ranges of redundant buildings being converted to five or more dwellings (limit 10 dwellings). One scheme included a modern barn with roller shutter doors, but that achieved a consent too. The third case study was a mix of Class Q and a full planning application, the latter taking much longer to determine, partly because it involved resolving the phosphate issue.
BNG from a local authority perspective – Adam Corbin
Adam’s background in the rural sphere includes acting for a large number of local authorities as well as the Forestry Commission, Natural England, and institutional landowners. His presentation focuses on the perspective of the “now” – how to take advantage of the opportunities and getting things done.
Is there a market for BNG credits? Yes, particularly for those sitting on rarer habitats.
Case Study: Lower Otter Restoration:
Environment Agency work on the River Exe meant replacing coastal habitat. The scheme was to remove flood defences from the River Otter to allow the sea and the river to reclaim the land
Estates and Environment Agency had to work together to achieve the objectives
Multiple tenant issues and multiple stakeholders to work with, eg impact on footpaths. Popular tourist area
Ultimately, the scheme proceeded without guarantee that the wildlife would show up in the new wetlands habitat.
Case Study: Lyscombe, Poole Harbour: Dorset Wildlife Trust wanted a farm which was for sale to create a habitat site. The site contained an SSSI. The scheme was supported by Natural England who contributed acquisition funding.
A “normal” deal for such schemes involves:
LPA working with a landowner with BNG credits
LPA entering into a s106 agreement with a developer
Landowner and developer agreeing a credit purchase agreement.
Deals can get much more complicated and involve eg, habitat bankers and brokers, contractors, Natural England, third party funders, phosphate and nitrate credits, carbon offsetting, leases, s33 agreements, conservation management agreements (see chart).
Conservation Agreements:
Responsible Bodies are created to enforce covenants and to step in as the beneficiary of the covenants. 33 LPAs are listed as Responsible Bodies; there are also many commercial operators. These have been used previously for forestry schemes and can be abused
Commercial operators can also act as Responsible Bodies, but price will be an issue
S106 agreements are part of the structure and can be more effective than conservation covenants.
Common property Issues:
Sporting and mineral rights. There are opportunities where mineral extraction, when complete, can create a new wetland uplift habitat – the landowner has the mineral royalties and the land becomes BNG habitat
Covenants – can be a problem as credits could be restricted. Could be covered by insurance, for which there is good insurer appetite
Public access – the ideal would be to combine the credits with public access to avoid conflict and negative impact on the value of the opportunity, eg a dog management strategy
Tenancies – difficult to make BNG work for 30 years with an AHA tenancy unless packaged up to enable one or other of the parties to take advantage of the opportunity (change to farm business tenancy; include an option for the landlord to take land back for the scheme). Often a farmer will wish to be involved in the management of the defined land.
Nutrient Neutrality:
It is a political football!
Need to decide whether or not to take the money now
Value is nearly market land value and the land can still be used for agriculture for the duration of the scheme (eg conservation grazing). By 2030 no development should discharge nutrients into the environment, so temporary credits are available (permanent credits are for 120 years)
Schemes are available for ditch management which can generate nutrient credits.
Stacking and Additionality –there were concerns that BNG would completely sterilise land use by prohibiting multiple funding streams. These have been relaxed, so BNG and nutrient credits can be stacked on the same site. You can also include corporate ESG roll-up of credits with social value, which are designed to control the use of the land. It is hoped that the dominance of public money will over time reduce, helped with planning requirements like green infrastructure and sustainable drainage schemes.
Landscape Recovery: The idea is that in order to achieve large scale landscape change, assembled landowners get together and do all of the things that they need to do to, to achieve corridors, to achieve the major change that’s required for particular landscapes. They will be 20-year bespoke agreements which could include up to 40 landowners and can attract BNG credits or the Habitat Bank. The collaborative projects will require a master management plan, a lead applicant and a legal agreement structure (SPV). Public funds (Defra, Natural England, Forestry Commission, National Trust) are common; tax liabilities can be a challenge.
The local authority in the marketplace. There are tortuous considerations of the options:
Opportunities – BNG and Nutrient Neutrality (NN) for its own developments, then sell credits; brokerage
Procurement Act 2023 – it is not clear how BNG/NN transactions are covered. Each transaction needs to be analysed and structured to meet criteria under the Act and any procurement represents fairness and value for money
Appropriation of land between different purposes eg, from smallholdings to development. S122 of the Local Government Act gives flexibility
Trading – local authorities can trade (Localism Act, 2011). Because you are selling credits, you are not selling a covenant. Setting up a trading entity, with a Secretary of State order, can be more successful, but sometimes time consuming. Without a land holding this would probably be a commercial activity; s106 agreements are not a disposal of an interest in land (probably!)
Conservation covenants can also be more straight forward and demonstrate that they are a property transaction and not trading.
Delivering BNG ‘in house’: A practical case study – Emma Chapman
Emma is the Principal Rural Estates Officer at Hertfordshire County Council and she here gives the nuts and bolts of a live project.
Hert’s rural estate is extensive containing a small holdings and a Greenbelts estate (approx. 5,000 acres in each). The county farms tend to be 100-200 acres let on 20-year farm business tenancies; the greenbelt land tends to be let on AHAs of 300-500 acres, some going back to the 1930s. Many holdings are let as bare land without farm buildings. It includes woodland, residential dwellings, and country parks.
Herts declared a climate emergency in 2019 and produced the “Sustainable Herts Strategy” followed by “A Sustainable Rural Estate Strategy”, with a target of 30% nature by 2030. We also have a development programme which is likely to require its own BNG, and to show that BNG is deliverable.
Case Study: Westmill Farm
Westmill Farm is to the North West of Hitchin and was considered to be a suitable site as the tenancy was due to be re-let; its boundary on one side is a chalk stream (Herts has 10% of the world’s chalk streams, so an important habitat to protect); a nature reserve; it’s on the edge of the Chilterns AONB; it has potential to form part of the Local Nature Recovery Strategy and hasn’t been identified for development. It was acquired as a County Small Holding in 1914. Using the land for BNG will not stop this small holding use, and legal advice has confirmed it can still be held as part of Herts’ Small Holding Estate.
Working with the county council’s Countryside and Rights of Way team, a BNG scheme has been designed which converts the arable land into species rich grassland, as well as some smaller areas of scrub and woodland creation. This scheme will still allow the landscape to be farmed with sheep grazing the grassland. We are hoping to creating a chalk grassland and this could be a future bite of the BNG cherry for further units - an uplift of 213 Habitat Units across the 80 acres. This habitat scheme has specifically been designed to improve the landscape, and also to replace the habitats to be lost through development in Hertfordshire, including selling some BNG units in a phased plan (see image ).
There are 4 planned phases, as not all the 213 credits were required immediately. The habitat management plan released the credits in blocks of 40/52/57/64. We marketed the small holding on a standard 20-year term for a farm business tenancy. Agriculture with diversification was encouraged, with the tenant responsible for delivering the Habitat Management Plan (HMP). Interested parties were required to submit by tender a business plan, budget, and deliver the HMP (including the first 5 year contracting charges).
There were fewer applicants than usual for this tenancy, due to the habitat delivery element. Herts would pay any contracting charges for works the council wanted. Selection was by interview, following a complex scoring criteria (experience, rent offer, farm business plan, diversification and environmental proposals, budget and financial stability).
Finances were difficult to reconcile, to identify how much it would cost for a 30-year term. There was a revenue v capital debate – habitat can be established using capital up to the point the habitat is created, but there are some scary costs (seed for all phases of grassland costs £90,000). Overall, the creation over 30 years were costed at over £3m but with an income potential of +£6m.
The key questions, which were answered with the help of Michelmores (see Adam Corbin’s presentation above) were:
Can we make a profit? There are only certain situations where we as local authorities can make a profit - yes, if it is a disposal of a land interest, so use a conservation covenant or contained within a s106?
Are the receipts revenue or capital? Disposals of land interests are usually capital receipts, but most of the BNG spend is typically revenue as it is management of the habitats. Approx 40% of total costs could be revenue
Can habitat establishment be capitalised? This one went to our Auditors and CIPFA. It was confirmed that the proposed time to target condition can be capitalised (grassland is 10 years, broadleaved woodland 15 years, mixed scrub 10, hedgerow 5).
Where are we today in this journey?
The finance side is resolved, the s106 is agreed, the tenant is in occupation, habitat creation year 1 completed, 12 units are required by Herts to date
Issues – explaining BNG is a challenge; is s106 the right route?; the importance of getting the right tenant; risks – costs involved are high – year 1 £100,000 for habitat creation.
What would we do differently?
High distinctiveness habitats should be explored, eg floodplain mosaic, orchards
Time – there was immediate pressure to provide credits for developments underway
Legal advice – obtain early.
Herts is looking at other potential BNG sites. Rather than do it in-house, we may seek private finance. It is vital to build relationships with the tenants.
And the unknown – to understand the implications of LGR.
A guide to Local Government Reform: Property strategies – Norse panel
Subtitled “Turning estates into engines of fiscal resilience and growth”, the first session of the afternoon was a panel session chaired by Paul Pawa, Strategic Business Development Director of the Norse Group. Panel members were Clare Hudson, Regional Programme Manager, One Public Estate Cabinet Office; Laura Boutle, Strategic Estate Advisor, Public Sector Specialist, Navigate Public Estate Consulting Ltd; Alan Richards, Executive Director for Environment and Place, Southend City Council.
Notes to this session are brief, as this issue of ACES’ Terrier includes two articles from panel member Laura and Norse colleague Richard Gawthorpe on this topic
In context, and key levers to drive growth and financial resilience.
The financial strain in local government, with budget cutting over the last 15 years; growing pressures of social care, homelessness, special needs; s114 Notices
Devolution and LGR – the benefits of simplicity, removing duplication
Housing and infrastructure and opportunities in the civic estate.
The panellists’ introduction:
Alan’s current broader role seeing property as a corporate asset; opportunities to work with partners for economic growth and job creation, driving inward investment. A recent example – working with the NHS to establish a phlebotomy unit in a shopping centre, which increases access and footfall. His message – assert your influence
Laura’s 30 years of experience prove the public estate can be transformed into engines of resilience, growth and community value. However, there is sometimes a lack of holistic understanding of community needs. Critical property information held in a spreadsheet is essential, and clarity on your council’s strategic objectives
Clare and the role of One Public Estate and the importance of governance and knowing what public authorities own. Barking Riverside is a good example of working together – public and private - and the importance of adequate infrastructure from day one (there are 3 schools for only 6,500 households, but set to grow to 20,000). A lesson is to work with existing communities and businesses.
Q. What is the single biggest shift LAs need to make?
A. Maybe new mayors will be a big influence; collective working knowledge in the new organisation; no knee jerk decisions to sell assets; good professional relationships across the board and region; acknowledge change and work collectively; don’t underestimate the time needed; bring young surveyors on board.
Q. How will the strategic shift in Integrated Care Boards affect the OPE programme?
A. The reduction of ICBs could be mirrored for new LGR structures. The scale of surplus land and buildings not fit for purpose requires a new approach (eg shopping centre diagnostic centres held on leasehold). Clare is currently working on a master plan In Newham bringing together new health provisions, school, leisure centre and land released for 3,000 homes.
Q. What are the opportunities?
A. The scale of opportunity with devolution and mayoral combined authorities is huge, with better access to funding. It requires defining new strategic objectives; it could attract new professionals and the next generation of surveyors; opportunities to merge community assets to provide better facilities.
Cornwall Council LGR in practice: A case study – Adam Birchall
Adam offers a perspective on his involvement in the rationalisation of assets with the LGR for Cornwall County. He does this through the lessons of 10 assets and describes the transition and the subsequent and ongoing integration and progress from the 16 years since then, focussed on the role of a local authority property estate in supporting systemic service change.
A full article on this presentation is contained in this issue of ACES’ Terrier.
LGR and devolution: A good governance guide - Dr. Steve Norris, LSH
Steve has promised a full article on his presentation in 2025 Winter Terrier, so this write up will be briefer than usual. Steve has for this issue written up the REVO “Shaping Tomorrow’s Places”.
Can LGR and devolution help unlock more new homes and critical regeneration and infrastructure projects? There are many challenges to the 1.5m homes target (economic uncertainty, planning, viability, building safety regulations, infrastructure capacity, buyer uncertainty and affordable housing).
The government has introduced new legislation reforms and initiatives for its plan for change – the update to the NPPR, the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, 10-year Industrial and Infrastructure Strategies and Strategic Defence Review. Plus the biggest and most ambitious reorganisation of local government over the last 30 years, whose bold plan is to empower local leaders and communities; devolution is fundamental to the government’s plan to drive growth.
The new authorities will have to produce integrated transport plans, local growth plans; stronger influence on public health and social care integration; new planning powers for mayors of combined authorities and preparation of spatial development strategies and other wider powers. Greater financial autonomy also means these devolved authorities are going to be able to set the agenda going forward, from spatial planning and infrastructure investment through to prioritising housing delivery and regeneration projects – opportunities and challenges.
The councils involved and timescales are shown in the images. The next critical date is 28 November 2025 for submissions of proposals for unitary structures. Some local authorities are being fast tracked through the Priority Programme. The Vesting Day is May 2028, the formal handover when all new devolved structures go live and powers are fully transferred.
There will be uncertainty in the transitional period, leading to “a paralysis in decision making and delays to plan making and critical regeneration projects.” However, the REVO survey 2025 indicated predominantly positive views of LGR and devolution. And in terms of funding, hopefully devolution will lead to more consolidated, more sustainable and more patient funds which take a longer-term view on development and provide greater certainty for critical place-based regeneration and infrastructure projects which should help with viability and reduce the risk of failure during the lifecycle of project development. But a big positive from LGR and devolution is the return of regional planning and development to be delivered through the new system of spatial development strategies.
Case studies
Two examples of where combined authorities and mayoral development corporations have helped support and deliver critical urban regeneration projects and new homes are, firstly, Hartlepool (Tees Valley Combined Authority) and its purchase of the failing Middleton Grange shopping centre because of a reluctance of the previous private owner and local authority to do anything. Hartlepool Development Corporation actively engaged with the occupiers in the community at the outset and other stakeholders to consider the options for transformation, with an ultimate ambition to create a more attractive, sustainable and viable destination for businesses, investors, the community and visitors focused on a new commercial area and repurposed listed department store, the delivery of more new homes and creating leisure and event space initially as meanwhile uses to help drive placemaking.
Secondly, Stockport Mayoral Development Corporation. Set up as a Greater Manchester Combined Authority-backed delivery vehicle in 2019 to lead the large-scale regeneration of Stockport’s town centre west, it is widely regarded as the UK’s first MDC focused on a town centre, and it is held up as a test case for how mayoral-led delivery structures can lead and accelerate complex urban regeneration. It involves a new transport interchange and a programme of new town centre development, backed by a leadership and delivery strategy that the private sector has confidence in. The MDC has been instrumental in helping deliver over 1,000 new homes in the initial phases, and there are targets for many thousands more homes across the full programme, as well as workspace, town centre transport improvements and improved public realm.
In conclusion, proactive planning, consensus building and resource allocation will be critical and be a springboard for significant place-based investment. But it needs commitment from key players and steady progress.
“The road ahead won’t be easy, but it will be full of opportunities” Iain Murray, CIPFA.
Attraction and retention of young talent in the property industry: Avison Young Panel
A panel chaired by Kim Grieveson discussed how to attract and retain young surveyors in the public sector. Panel members ranged across local authorities and the education sector and discussion was of direct relevance to individual delegates in their workplace, and ACES as an organisation.
A full article on this presentation is contained in this issue of ACES’ Terrier - “Young talent”
LGR Panel Q&A
The panel consisted of representatives of ACES’ four Corporate Members – Paul Pawa, Norse Group; Neil Parlett, Lambert Smith Hampton; Kim Grieveson, Avison Young; and Jack Mitchell, Carter Jonas.
This session is a catchall for the afternoon sessions and final thoughts. One key is how intrinsically linked place regeneration is alongside frontline services. In terms of health, 20% of people are in clinical care; so 80% potentially we can influence through LGR: place regeneration should be linked to the NHS and early intervention.
There is a lot to be done in a relatively challenging timeline. We should get in place some of the early wins. The Cornwall County case study has shown the evolution, the opportunities and benefits through the dynamic role of property and teams working together.
Don’t underestimate a period of chaos! There is a danger of a few authorities in a new unitary getting into a bum fight! Changing skills sets will be important, including the application of AI. We need to go into LGR with eyes wide open.
The crossover between property sectors is merging, eg a new school requiring BNG units which are being delivered by the farm estate.
What will be the role of the private sector in LGR and service delivery? We’re going to have to work harder together to come up with clever solutions to some of the projects we want to see successfully delivered. This includes exploring funding opportunities, which should be more stable for the new organisations.
Closing remarks – Alan Richards, Senior Vice President of ACES and Director, Southend-on-Sea City Council
Alan thanked Dan for the opportunity to close the conference.
There is lots to be hopeful about and a lot to prepare for: the idea of a day off at any time in the next few years seems a distant prospect!
We must consider how ACES can add value through experience, contacts, FACES, support, the regular CPD we receive through our network, and friendships which endure over our working lives.
It will be important for us to look after our own wellbeing as we work through it all. And as a shameless plug, consider signing up for the Public Sector Challenge which has wellbeing at its core – it would be great to get a big team to London on 17 January 2026 [Ed – see Alan’s article about the Peak District Challenge and flyer in this issue].
Thanks to the ACES team beavering away behind the scenes, particularly the secretariat David Pethen and Trevor Bishop. Advance thanks to Betty for what promises to be an epic edition of the Terrier!
Speaking of ACES’ Terrier, thanks to Marcus M for the great work to develop the new web platform and get the Terrier online in searchable format from now, and for all future copies. Watch this space for further website developments.
Thanks to the venue and hosts for today and yesterday evening. It’s a beautiful city with some lovely spaces to spend time together in.
Thanks to all who have submitted nominations for ACES Awards for Excellence which will be presented at the AGM on 20 November at Cardiff Castle.
Please remember to keep your LinkedIn profiles up to date and follow ACES and our members to help build the profile.
A final thanks to all our sponsors and presenters, particularly our Platinum and Gold sponsors, Norse, LSH, AY and CJ. All of this is only possible because of the support that you give to the organisation, both in terms of speakers and presentations, but also the financial help that you give us to make sure that we can operate events and run successfully as an organisation. My sincere thanks to all of you.
Finally, a massive thank you to Dan for his vision, time, care and dedication to ACES and an outstanding conference and pre-conference dinner. The high-bar has been maintained and the pressure is on now for me as I look forward to welcoming everyone to Southend next September. The venue might be down the end of the pier!
Comments