PPP A Funding Framework For The Future Caleb Butler

Public Private Partnerships:
A funding framework for the future?
Caleb Butler
Master of Planning
University of Liverpool School of Environmental Sciences
2010/11
Public Private Partnerships: A funding framework for the future?
Public Private Partnerships:

A funding framework for the future?
Caleb Butler
Master of Planning
200 555 706
The Gordon Stephenson Building

74 Bedford Street South
Liverpool
Merseyside
L69 7ZQ
(Cover image: Block two of the Liverpool based Mann Island project, source: author)
Page 2 of 91
Acknowledgements
This dissertation topic has been chosen in a deliberate attempt to research an area
of planning that is at the fore of political and economic agendas. Due to the
developing nature of case studies and examples used, the information gathered is
time sensitive and may therefore change at any given point.
The scope of this research has been extended as a result of Richard Phillips,
Principal Transport Planner and Chief Representative for the Crossrail project within
the Greater London Authority (GLA) agreeing to meet with myself in London to
discuss a major development project funded through the partnership method. A
lengthy interview with Richard resulted in me gathering a wealth of information and
understanding regarding the intricacies of partnership funding when delivering urban
mega-projects. The Crossrail scheme is an ongoing project; with funding and
development information being extremely sensitive, I owe a great debt to Richard
and his personal contribution, without which the supporting study would not have
been possible.
After discussions on potential help with this dissertation in the summer months Matt
Brook, Director and Principal Architect at Broadway Malyan honoured his word.
Matt‟s position as architectural lead of the Mann Island project allowed me to
analyse, discuss and critique arguably the most prominent urban development in the
North of England. Matt‟s input not only provided added detail on aspects of urban
design and development of the urban realm; but also enabled my research to provide
a place specific analysis of a bespoke, Northern metropolitan environment.
I greatly appreciated the knowledge and opinion contributed by friend and Senior
Planner and Urban Designer at BDP Christian Nielsen. The ability to relate this area
of research to environmental planning is a skill; one that Christian brilliantly delivered,
clearly articulating points that fed directly into the chosen area of study.
An added level of depth is given to my work as a result of Senior Lecturer Peter

North, Social and Political Geographer at the University of Liverpool, specialising in
space, place and people. Peter provided an element of balance to an otherwise
Page 3 of 91
planning/architecture dominated contributing panel; delivering a social and political

counterweight to my findings, for this I thank him.
The process of producing a research based project has been a learning curve, one
which would have undoubtedly not been as successful had I not had the input and
support of advisor Professor Peter Batey.
Page 4 of 91
Abstract
This dissertation is focused on public-private partnerships and their ability to support

the delivery of urban infrastructure. The current political and economic climate
suggests a reduction in the continued development of towns and cities. It is therefore
the purpose of this study to outline the framework of a method together with its
potential to continue the delivery of quality urban environments that contribute to the
general health and functioning of our nations metropolitan areas.
The current Coalition Government, imposing deep spending cuts into public funding
suggests the need for financial support from alternative sources. In such times of
austerity the question is posed to the private sector, asking whether it has the
potential to fill financial funding gaps in building projects.
By assessing the technical components of public-private partnerships, the study

initially provides a better understanding of the relationships shared between
stakeholders. This fundamental understanding is then supported by both economic
and political contexts, in order to outline the environment within which partnerships
are now delivered. Both academic and urban professional guidance and opinion
supported by case study material help the research reach a series of conclusions.
The findings of this study clearly define the interaction between public and private
bodies in the building of partnerships together with the more subjective, intangible
elements that are products of effective public-private projects. Conclusions are drawn
and explained, commenting on the responsibility and potential of both sectors to
invest in our urban environments, delivering a continued impetus for change.
Page 5 of 91
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements 3
Abstract 5
Table of Contents 6
List of Figures, Maps and Illustrations 7
List of Acronyms 8
Section 1: Introduction
1.1 Background : Reason for study 9

1.1.1 Partnerships in relation to planning practice 9
1.1.2 Environmental sustainability 9
1.1.3 Researching Public Private Partnerships 11
1.1.4 Core points of the research 12
1.1.5 Controlling question 12
1.1.6 Research Aim 12
1.1.7 Key research objectives 12
1.1.8 Research Methods 13
1.1.9 Structure 15
Section 2: Context
2.1 What are the elements to consider in analysing the context of the public private
model? 17
2.1.1 Partnerships: bridging the funding deficit 17
2.1.2 Origins of the Public Private- financing model 18
2.2.1 The theory behind partnership frameworks 20
2.2.2 Technical components of the partnership method 22
2.2.3 Summary 24
Section 3: Political Origins
Section 3.1 The political origins of private sector vs. state relations 25
Section 3.2.1 Key focal points under the Thatcher regime 25
Section 3.2.2 The private sector: a solution? 25
Section 3.2.3 Summary 27
Page 6 of 91
Section 4: The Economic Downturn and Public-Private Stimulus
Section 4.1 The PPP method and economic instability 28

Section 4.2 Market activity: partnership confidence and spending 28
Section 4.3 Summary 32
Section 5 Land Use Planning, Urban Betterment & Environmental Sustainability
Section 5.1 What are the considerations when developing regeneration strategies
through the partnership financing method? 33
Section 5.2 Strategic planning that considers all 33
Section 5.2.1 Overview 36
Section 5.3 Land development in central and periphery locations 36
Section 5.4 Urban regeneration: working with the concept of ‘sustainable
development’ 37
Section 5.1 Case Studies
Section 5.1.1 Introduction to studies 39
Section 5.2.1 Case Study 1: Mann Island 40

Section 5.2.2 Context and project location 41
Section 5.2.3 The theory and operations behind the project 43
Section 5.2.4 Case study 1 conclusions 49
Section 5.3.1 Case Study 2: Crossrail 50

Section 5.3.2 Context and project location 51
Section 5.3.3 Purpose of the project and method of delivery 53
Section 5.4 Epilogue 58
Section 6: Conclusion: the public-private model and the way forward

59
Appendix A: Bibliography 61
Appendix B: Public-Private Partnership Research Contact Details 66
Appendix C: Interview Transcripts 69
Page 7 of 91
List of Figures, Maps and Illustrations
Fig 1.1 One New Change retail development, London 10

Fig 1.2 Spectrum of Public Private Partnerships 23
Fig 1.3 European PPP Market 2008-09 (By Value) 29
Fig 1.4 Current and projected world infrastructure spending needs 31
Fig 1.5 A projection of the completed Mann Island Scheme 40
Fig 1.6 Map showing the location of Liverpool 41
Fig 1.7 Aerial view of Liverpool city centre highlighting the site location of the
Mann Island project 42
Fig 1.8 A projection of the finished Mann Island scheme showing the projects
relation to Liverpool‟s Pier Head 42
Fig 1.9 A site plan of the Mann Island project showing: Block 1/the Latitude
Building; Block2/the Longitude Building; and Block 3, a non-residential
commercial block 44
Fig 2.0 Public realm work cenrtred around the Canning Dock 45
Fig 2.1 The Liver, Cunard and Port of Liverpool buildings alternatively know
as the „Three Graces‟ 47
th
Fig 2.2 A view from the 13 floor of Block 3 showing the partially completed
Blocks 1 and 2 and their relation to the Port of Liverpool building
opposite 48
Fig 2.3 Projection of the finished Crossrail station at Canary Wharf 50
Fig 2.4 Map showing the location of London 51
Fig 2.5 Regional Map showing the Crossrail route 54
Fig 2.6 A projection of the finished station at Canary Wharf 56
Fig 2.7 Crossrail ownership structure defining public-private involvement 57
Page 8 of 91
List of Acronyms
BOO Build Own Operate

BOT Build Operate Transfer
BSF Building Schools for the Future
CBI Confederation of British Industry
D&B Design & Build
DBFO Design Build Finance and Operate
DBOM Design Build Operate and Maintain
DETR Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions
DfT Department for Transport
ECMT European Conference of Ministers of Transport
EPEC European PPP Expertise Centre
GDP Gross Domestic Product
LED Local Economic Development
L(E)DS Local (Economic) Development Strategies
LGA Local Government Administration
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
P3 (Abbreviation for PPP – Public Private Partnership)
PFI Private Finance Initiative
PPG Planning Policy Guidance
PPP Public Private Partnership
SRF Strategic Regeneration Fund
TENs Trans European Networks
TfL Transport for London
UNESCO United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation
Page 9 of 91
1.2 Background : Reason for study
Partnership, n. The fact or condition of being a partner; association or participation;

companionship.
OED Oxford University Press (2010)
1.1.1 Partnerships in relation to planning practice
The planning profession is in a constant state of flux. Changing circumstances are

largely influenced by fluctuating political and economic factors that directly impact;
the technical ability of the planning system to function.
The constant state of change results in uncertainty regarding the condition of the
nation‟s built infrastructure. The recent economic downturn and changing of political
regimes lies testament to the challenging times in which the planning system must
continue to function.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines partnership as „The fact or condition of being a
partner; association or participation; companionship‟ (OED 2010). This study aims to
clarify the potential in the partnership method to overcome a slowing of urban
development as a result of changing national government discourse and global
economic trends.
1.1.2 Environmental sustainability
The planning system, as a result of a growing global conscience for the preservation
of the natural environment (see: RioEarth Summit and Agenda 21 1992; and Kyoto
Protocol 1997) is now obligated to operate within the parameters of „sustainable
development‟. The most common definition of sustainable development is provided
by the Brundtland Report (1987) describing a form of development that „meets the
needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet
their own needs‟. Despite the continual coining of the phrase throughout
Page 10 of 91
(environmental) planning and more general development discourse, no specific set of

requirements have been solidified that provide a closed definition of the term. This
study does not set out to define the term „sustainable development‟, however the
research into city centre development considers environmental issues.
The delivery of high quality infrastructure has the potential to address prominent
points for concern surrounding sustainable development and the climate change
agenda. In support of this case study material will be used, describing the delivery of
major urban assets; outlining the potential for the public private partnership (P3 or
PPP) model to address concerns over sustainable living and cultural norms.
GDP figures at the end of October (2010) revealed a 0.8% rise in economic growth
for the third quarter, supporting current job creation and government austerity
measures. However, an estimated half of the growth recorded post recession has
come from the construction sector which accounts for just 6% of the economy. We
must therefore question the sustainability of such growth trends (Daniel Pimlott,
Financial Times, 30-31/10/10) and their public/private funded origin.
Despite concern over the current buoyancy of the construction sector, pioneering
building projects are still being delivered. In London the opening of the 560,000 sq ft
office and retail development, One New Change (Fig 1.1) which is at present 93% let
(Carl Wilkinson, Financial Times, 30-31/10/10), suggests a renewed confidence in
city centre building.
Fig 1.1 One New Change retail development, London Source: Author
Page 11 of 91
As cities grow the public‟s perception of city spaces change. Through analysing the
theory behind public-private funded projects this study aims to reveal how local
identity and the place-making agenda are served on the road to creating compact
urban living.
1.1.3 Researching Public Private Partnerships
The topic of public-private funding is an extensive field, one that due to time
constraints cannot be fully covered in this dissertation. However, fundamental
components of the partnership method can be explored. Supported by research into
prominent examples of co-financed projects; the potential benefits behind the public-
private partnership model will be better documented.
Focusing on changing economic circumstances and the financial implications of the

global economic downturn, the future viability of England‟s urban centres are
considered. An increased emphasis on the planning system to deliver tailor-made
solutions to urban regeneration strategies, forces those in planning and urbanism
professions to consider the use of land in our towns and city centres more carefully.
The origins and theory behind the public private model are introduced, describing the
political and economic circumstances that sparked the introduction of co-financing
initiatives. The roots of the method are then expanded upon, providing a technical
background to the public private model; detailing types of partnership and the
intended results of pooling resources from both public and private sectors.
A political evolution of the public-private model is provided, explaining how

government relations have influenced the way in which the globalisation phenomena
has been treated. The study briefly outlines the 1980s Conservative era of privatism
and centralisation of power, comparing this to a more decentralized form of district,
sub-regional and local governance experienced today.
Public-private finance is then considered in an economic context. Tracking

partnership activity over the recession period, the method is analysed for its potential
to act as a part-solution to reduced (bank) lending as a result of the recent financial
downturn.
Page 12 of 91
The ability of the public-private model to deliver sustainable living and working
environments is then investigated. Patterns of land use are considered, discussing a
linking together of the urban fabric in a way that places people at the heart of urban
living. This more theoretical side to the potential behind co-financing is supported by
a pair of case studies. Each study documents the ability of public-private initiatives to
contribute to the increased infrastructural capacity of modern city centres.
1.1.4 Core points of the research
The investigation into P3 methods will broadly cover 2 aspects: 1) the climate
(political and economic) in which partnerships are implemented will be analysed,
questioning their ability to overcome turbulent market conditions; 2) the ability of the
public-private model to contribute to social wellbeing and the building of cohesive
urban centres.
1.1.5 Controlling question
„Does the public-private partnership model have the ability to support the delivery of
urban-infrastructure in light of recent market failures?‟
1.1.6 Research Aim
To investigate the frameworks for P3 administration and management; considering

the long term social, economic and environmental implications for large-scale urban
development projects.
1.1.7 Key research objectives
The following research objectives are central to the study:
 Objective 1
Investigate the origins to the PPP method
o Where do the economic and political contexts lie?
 Objective 2
Analyse the technical components of the partnership model
Page 13 of 91
o What are the relationships between partners in financing

arrangements?
o What are potential advantages and disadvantages to the method?
o What are the necessary components for successful partnership
functioning?
 Objective 3
Discuss the level of PPP operation in light of the global economic downturn
o How have public-private financing methods been effected by

reductions in lending and spending?
 Objective 4
Discuss the ability of the P3 method to enhance city spaces; connect with a
locale and sense of identity; and preserve urban environments
o What are the spatial effects of major development projects in urban

centres?
o How should local people be considered in the delivery of projects
financed by both public and private bodies?
o Do major urban assets delivered as a result of successful partnerships
effect the way people use urban centres?
1.1.8 Research Methods
The method(s) of research chosen were guided by the type of objectives outlined
from the outset. The very nature of the topic required a combination of approaches;
developing a series of layers, better answering key points for consideration listed
above.
Page 14 of 91
Methods included:
 A review of existing literature with core texts:
o Akintoye et. al (2003) Public-Private Private Partnerships: Managing

risks and opportunities;
o Wilkinson & Reed (2008) Property Development;
providing a historical and technical analysis of the building and

implementation of the partnership process; describing political
environments that have shaped the way current partnership models
function.
o Moore & Begg (cited in Boddy & Parkinson 2004) City Matters:
Competitiveness, cohesion and urban governance;
analyses the relationships between the distribution of people and

regeneration strategies at the sub-regional. Boddy & Parkinson focus
on the development of urban assets, the competitiveness of urban
centres and the framework for governance and control when
developing urban environments through the partnership approach.
 The continual analysis of newspapers has provided a constant thread of

information regarding the changing nature of such a politically and
economically sensitive topic.
 The Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD)

provides a platform for the comparison of government policies in the pursuit
of solutions and best practice methods that support sustainable growth.
Therefore, the diverse collection of expert bodies that have contributed to the
widening and deepening of the partnership debate, facilitated by the OECD,
prove an invaluable resource in outlining the factors that make this area of
research relevant to current socio-economic environments.
 A pair of case studies are used to better illustrate the structures of and
potential behind public private financing methods. Studies involved interviews
Page 15 of 91
and site visits in both London and Liverpool; recording the opinions of key
players relative to each project.
 Semi-structured interviews have also been held with professionals related to

the built environment; deepening the discussion on the treatment of existing
urban fabrics.
(Full transcripts of interviews can be found in Appendix C)
1.1.9 Structure
Introduces the idea of the partnership method and discusses the

element of sustainability. The core points of the research; controlling
question; research aim; key objectives and research methods are
stated
Section 2: Context
Provides insight into the current climate in which development in our

towns and cities must operate; introducing the concept of place
specific regeneration, outlining the theoretical and technical
components of the partnership method
Outlining a political history of the partnership model, discussing

changes in social and industrial activity and how this affected the
ability of urban centres to develop
Section 4: The Economic Downturn and Public-Private Stimulus
Discussing the operation of partnership strategies during the

economic crisis
Page 16 of 91
Section 5: Land Use Planning, Urban Betterment & Environmental

Sustainability
5.1: Case Studies
Looks at the potential to remodel the public realm; identifying the

priorities of development through open discourse, helping deliver
partnership projects that create more sustainable living environments
Section 6: Conclusion
A revision of original aims and objectives
Page 17 of 91
Section 2: Context
2.1 What are the elements to consider in analysing the context of the
public private model?
Boddy & Parkinson (2004) explain how the process of rebuilding our urban
envirmonments, within a changing social, economic and political context has resulted
in “shifts in the economic base of different towns and cities.” Despite a proliferation of
nationwide regeneration strategies, current economic and political climates fail to
greatly support pockets of urban decline. Is this therefore where the private sector
has its place?
2.1.1 Partnerships: bridging the funding deficit
The economic downturn negatively impacted PPP operations, increasing the

component of risk within partnership-based schemes, exposing the vulnerability in
single source financed projects. There has however, since the severe (market) dip in
2008 been a marked recovery in the confidence of investment and growth in the
urban development throughout 2010 (Benedict Clements Division, April, 2010).
Daniel Thomas (23-24/10/10), property correspondent for the Financial Times, writes
on the plan by British Land and a major Canadian pension firm to develop a 740ft
structure with estimated development costs of £350m in the centre of the capital, with
the intention of a second mega-structure in tow. Thomas includes a comment by
Peter Rees, Head of Planning in London City exclaiming that: “These towers reflect
the City‟s strength as a financial capital and its economic success, which is why they
were stopped two years ago in the credit crunch but can restart again now. This is
investors bringing money into London from outside the UK, money that would have
been spent in New York of the Middle East.”
Questions over the public-private partnership model are therefore now more
apparent than ever in considering the ability of the mechanism to bolster the
production of urban capital.
Page 18 of 91
The overarching issue when developing urban centres is one of place-specific

regeneration strategies, and the willingness and ability of both private and public
sectors to practice cooperative leadership in the pursuit of “common strategic goals”
(Boddy & Parkinson 2004).
2.1.2 Origins of the Public Private- financing model
The roots of regeneration through partnership are maybe best placed in the 1980s
with the introduction of the Thatcherite regime; the removal of boundaries of the
state; and simultaneous privatization of public assets. Grass roots community
activism and the partnering that followed as a result became widely notified due to
increased media coverage. The onset of the Toxteth riots in Liverpool in 1981
prompted a visit from the then Secretary of State for the Environment, Michael
Heseltine. As a result the foundations for the partnership based Groundwork Trust
were laid; creating a group of charities that help „people and organizations make
changes in order to create better neighbourhoods, to build skills and job prospects,
and to live and work in a greener way‟ (www.groundwork.org.uk – accessed
26/04/11; Walter 2010). Built on the premise of innovation, introducing new ways of
community building through partnership, with business leadership and support
providing further impetus for regeneration strategies (Walter 2010) the Groundwork
initiative was a major player in defining the public-private approach to regeneration.
During the 1980s the P3 method took the form of Local Economic Development
strategies (LED) (Bennett and Krebs 1991), directing the spending of government
funds and private sector contributions in the interest of urban regeneration. Bennett
and Krebs (1991) described how a PPP in the form of a LED would require the City
to provide land and buildings to a development while the private sector partner
contributes labour, raw materials, capital and specialist management skills. Both
parties share the risk of a business venture, therefore having equal equity in a
project. However, partnerships between the public and private sector at this time
were very much concerned with the waiving of taxes and fees in prime development
locations with the intention to encourage private sector investment (Akintoye et. al.
2003). The further encouragement however of private contributions to economic
development has implications for local democracy, where the concept of partnership
Page 19 of 91
is potentially used „as a possible foil for the reduction of local authority influence‟
(Hutchinson & Foley, 1994).
Carroll and Steane (2000) attempted to define this early method of partnership (Ford
& Zussman, 1997) as “a very wide diversity of partnerships and the circumstances in
which they arise as agreed, co-operative ventures that involve at least one public,
and one private-sector institution as partners.” This definition provides a fairly
ambiguous description of partnership relations, possibly required due to the penchant
for privatism in regeneration strategies throughout the 1980s. As the partnership
model develops, a greater level of detail is required to define the term.
The Private Finance Initiative, a form of public private partnership, was introduced in
1992 by the Conservative Party and Chancellor of the Exchequer Norman Lamont
under Prime Minister John Major (Heinecke, 2002) as a result of a lack in public
funding. Governments across the globe Italy, France, Spain, Australia, New Zealand
would typically use the PFI method to finance the building of motorways, prisons and
hospital buildings, the introduction of the 1997 Labour Government saw the PFI
method used to procure projects outside of core government infrastructure
(Heinecke, 2002).
The method of private occupation of public infrastructure in England dates back to

the seventeenth century. Due to the lack of government and local community capital
to finance the construction of turnpike roads; and additions to the canal and public
railway systems, private sector intervention was welcomed (Heinecke, 2002). Private
sector support however declined with increasing levels of government control over
market activity, leading to a severe reduction in private sector investment by the end
of the 19th century (Heinecke, 2002; Ford & Zussman, 1997 ).
Under PFI, the private sector party or parties finance construction costs and in turn
lease the finished product back to the public sector (for as long as the established
contract stipulates). This method of cooperative delivery enables government,
regional and local governing bodies to gain infrastructure without the need to raise
taxes (Wilkinson & Reed 2008). The format of partnership model between public and
private sectors exists in a variety of forms, from public sector dominated relationships
to predominantly private sector controlled projects (Savitch, 1998). It is the challenge
therefore, to see whether the products of the economic crisis, and subsequent
Page 20 of 91
lending draw-backs resulting in a „spike increase‟ in margins and fees, will critically
stifle partnership activity (Thadden, OECD 2009).
2.2.1 The theory behind partnership frameworks
Menzies (2010) comments on the term partnership often being used without a clear
understanding of the cooperative approach. Menzie (2010) describes how the
„Dictionary of Urbanism‟ attempts to solidify a currently flimsy concept: „partnership: a
loose connection of people and organizations with conflicting interests held together
by the prospect of securing government money.‟ (Cowan, 2005). The question here
is how to better design and develop partnerships that are based on common
understandings in the pursuit of a collective goal.
Menzie (2010) states that the Local Government Administration‟s (LGA) definition of
partnership as „working together‟ does not suffice in a world where environmental,
social and economic factors are all in conflict.
The collaborative effort of public private partnerships and the pooling of resources
and skills between the separate bodies are arguably the best way to achieve
successful outcomes, where neither party could achieve a similar end product
through a stand-alone effort. The PPP model widely acknowledged as an
increasingly sustainable way to deliver longevity in the provision of social
infrastructure „enhancing the value of public assets.‟ (Akintoye et. al. 2003); echoed
in Leadbeater (2008) “Open and collaborative models of organization will
increasingly trump closed and hierarchical models as a way to promote innovation,
organize work and engage consumers.” Here both Akintoye and Leadbeater
advocate for joined-up thinking between public and private bodies, through which
new ways of approaching construction projects may be designed; the sharing of
resources and specialist knowledge, leading to the delivery of more complete, holistic
infrastructure.
Peters (1998) identified five defining features of partnership models which help to
outline the definitive practice of public private relationships. The five features are all
based around an equitable relationship where risk and contributions to development
are shared in an enduring and stable understanding. Wilkinson & Reed (2008) make
the case that the partnership model is strengthened through creating an “atmosphere
of trust and openness” which is often subject to fundamental breakdowns when total
Page 21 of 91
cooperation with a team-like bond is not achieved between governing parties.” The
following parameters are therefore outlined as prerequisites to the successful
building of partnership strategies:
 Design control and efficiency (control over design and technical functioning of
infrastructure);
 Minimizing pre-construction budgeting and approvals periods;
 Maximizing efficiency of the construction period (and completion dates);
 Problem-solving co-operation;
 Cost control reporting and reconciliation;
 Agreed conflict and resolution procedures.
(Wilkinson & Reed, 2008)
When partnership programmes are formed there is a staple need and expectation
from all sides that the cooperative approach will build an equitable environment that
promotes longevity and profitability, while encouraging continual innovation and
growth.
Through summer placements in planning and architecture practices I have learned

how the design and technical functioning of infrastructure must like any building
project go through stages of value engineering; cutting what are seen to be
unnecessary expenses within a scheme. However both public and private bodies
must commit to producing high quality projects where financial constraints do not
stifle creativity.
With a collective understanding of a project vision, continual communication between

all partnership parties throughout the duration of a project reduces the chance of
financial disagreements pre-construction; expediting building times. This bilateral
method of communication changes the building process from a linear to iterative one;
each step in the project timeline allowing for discussion and feedback, giving clarity
to the partnership method.
Page 22 of 91
2.2.2 Technical components of the partnership method
A significant rise in the application of partnership finance has led to the design of
hybrid partnerships; further preventing a clear understanding of the roles different
agents play in the partnership process where it is publicly perceived that the „public
sector is „rights-driven‟, the private sector is „profits-driven‟ and the voluntary sector is
„values-driven‟.‟ (Menzies 2010). Where each sector now engages to varying
degrees in the activity of its counterparts, the discourse of „corporate responsibility‟,
trading and contracting agreements often forms a common language (Menzies
2010).
Three main strategies are considered by the public sector when approaching
procurement: the P3 model; Design and Build; and Prime Contracting. However, the
structuring and implementation of partnership models is not simple (Akintoye et. al.
2003). Malhorta (1997) proposes that government driven Public Finance Initiatives
(PFIs) need be concerned with transparency in public private relations; properly
assigning equal levels of risk, within often competitive bidding processes. The
element of risk and allocation of risk according to Malhorta (1997) often serves as the
primary point of contention in private sector BOT/BOO (Build Operate Transfer/Build
Own Operate) schemes (Akintoye et. al. 2003).
The PFI model of partnership building is the most common form of partnership
structure, most regularly adopting a Design, Build, Finance and Operate (DBFO)
format (Akintoye et. al. 2003). This form of partnership sees a private consortium
raise the capital to deliver a predefined project, with an established repayment
scheme from the Government (Davies & Ghani, 2006). The consortium has a
commitment to maintain the project over a period typically spanning 15-30
years(Davies & Ghani, 2006).1
The innate complexity of the PFI process combined with challenging political
circumstances, often delays building projects. Private sector involvement in the
delivery of public services however proves a lucrative venture, with partnership
schemes earning the private sector an estimated £30bn a year (Wilkinson & Reed
2008). This figure breaks down into £20bn in central government contracts and £5bn
1 The PFI label is also tagged in alternative forms as „Design, Build, Operate and Maintain‟ (DBOM) and
„Build, Own, Operate and Transfer‟ (BOOT).
Page 23 of 91
in both the health and education sectors, which indecently account for 13% of
Britain‟s GDP (Wilkinson & Reed 2008).
The content of this dissertation will focus primarily on the following models of public
private partnership frameworks:
 Joint ventures
o Partnerships in which the public and private sector partners pool their
assets, finance and expertise under joint management, so as to
deliver long-term growth in value for both partners …
This model provides a forum for direct collaborative dialogue between

the public and private sector partners as they work to develop the final
project.
 Partnership investments
o Partnerships in which the public sector contributes to the funding of
investment projects by private sector parties, to ensure that the public
sector shares in the return generated by these investments
(Akintoye et. al. 2003).
Fig 1.2 Spectrum of Public Private Partnerships

Source: Bennett et.al.(2000) in Bult-Spiering-Dewulf (2006)
Page 24 of 91
Fig 1.2 shows the changing role of Government across a spectrum of public-private
partnerships. The image shows how the role of the public sector changes depending
on the level of public or private involvement in a project; where in a largely publicly
backed project the governmental role is one of a „provider‟; while predominantly
private sector controlled schemes see the role of government as an enabler of
regulator.
Adding to partnership products of co-responsibility, equity and grant access (above),

public private procurement strategies can provide a range of net benefits to the
public sector; with an increased level of access to specialist skills and technology, in
turn raising the quality of a scheme; attracting larger, potentially more sophisticated
bidders to a project (Nova Scotia Government, 2000 cited in PPP models in the UK,
HM Treasury, 2000).
2.2.3 Summary
From the initial assessment of the PPP method it is clear that the economic climate
affects regeneration efforts; where the development of major urban infrastructure has
the potential to convey an image of economic buoyancy and confidence.
When analysing the strength of partnerships and their ability to deliver major building
projects the above outline shows that a common ground must be established
between both public and private bodies in order to deliver successful place-specific
regeneration schemes.
The technical outline shows how public-private projects have a number of possible
formats where both sectors have the potential to bring different assets to the table:
land; sourcing of raw materials; labour; technical skills and innovation; and capital.
Based on the theory of an equitable relationship, cooperation and clear
communication throughout the duration of a project, the partnership method works to
ultimately increase the deliverability of a scheme.
Page 25 of 91
Section 3.1: The political origins of private sector vs. state relations
Margret Thatcher served as a fulcrum for neo-liberal and neo-conservative activity.

Thatcher‟s view very much appealed to the then existing traditions within the
Conservative Party. For much of the 1980‟s the Conservative view resulted in a
period of conflict between „innovation and radicalism on the economic front‟ and a
reduction in expenditure on the socially focused sector; ultimately resulting in an
intensified maelstrom of class, region, race and gender differences (Atkinsion &
Moon 1994).
Section 3.2.1 Key focal points under the Thatcher regime
Three key themes resonated throughout the Thatcherite period; deindustrialization;

the urban – rural shift; and an ever more apparent North-South divide. The process
of deindustrialization emanated from the post war recession of the 1970s, where a
decline in the industrial sector spread to the manufacturing sector that underpinned
the functioning of many northern cities. Increasing globalisation and the onset of
containerisation caused a severe cut of jobs in manufacturing employment. This
resulted in a deconcentration from city centre locations to non-metropolitan counties,
seeking alternative sources of employment in periphery areas.
Section 3.2.2 The private sector: a solution?
Post 1985 it became apparent that the private sector were intended to play a focal
role in urban regeneration. By 1989 the Audit Commission stated that “There is now
little argument about the proposition that private-sector led growth is the main long
term answer to urban deprivation.” (Audit Commission 1989).
However, the
(CBI) paper Initiatives Beyond Charity (1988) comments on the initial cost of
reversing urban decline in stating that “The resources needed to turn decline into
growth in our major cities will…have to spring from sound economic development,
Page 26 of 91
driven by private investment decisions taken on the basis of the commercial returns
available, not from the sense of charity.” (CBI, 1988, p.9).
The introduction by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Geoffrey Howe, in his
budget speech of 1980 on Enterprise Zones(EZs) aimed to reverse the then current
trend of urban decline experienced throughout many of the nation‟s cities. The
initiative aimed to promote „private investment‟ and „commercial returns‟ as
mentioned by the CBI; advocating for the emphasis of radical free-market strategies
in an attempt to boost economic performance that would directly result in a spillover
scenario – directly impacting surrounding local economic centres. Despite the
concept of EZs being watered down by the time they became implemented in a
series of time-sensitive (ten years) benefits were still reserved:
(i) exemption from Development Land Tax…;

(ii) exemption from rates on industrial and commercial property;
(iii) 100 per cent allowances for Corporation and Income Tax purposes for
capital expenditure on industrial and commercial buildings;
(iv) applications from firms in Enterprise Zones for certain customs facilities
are processed as a matter of priority and certain criteria relaxed;
(v) exemption from industrial training levies and from the requirements to
supply information to Industrial Training Boards;
(vi) a greatly simplified planning regime: developments that conform to the
adopted scheme for each zone do not require express planning
permission;
(vii) speedier administration of those controls remaining in force; and
(viii) reduced government requests for statistical information.
(Roger Tym and Partners, 1984, p.1 cited in Atkinson & Moon 1994).
Joyner et. al writes for The Sunday Times (13/03/11) on the £100m reintroduction of
EZs by Chancellor George Osborne with the intent of „boosting economic growth‟.
The Work Foundation a not-for-profit think-tank however questions the ability of the
renewed scheme to bring about real change. In the period of 1981 to 2003 the think-
tank calculated an estimate £1.3bn in tax waivers, this figure not only puts into
perspective the nominal start-up figure of £100m but also, puts in doubt the ability of
an already economically struggling Government to hand out large numbers of tax
breaks.
Page 27 of 91
Many of the strategic action plans and initiatives emerging post 1979 became to be
defined as „urban‟ strategies. However when viewed collectively they represented
what the Audit Commission (1989 p.1) described as a „patchwork quilt‟ at national
and locally focused levels; ultimately resulting in a graying of departmental roles and
overall integration into areas and organizations requiring support in search of urban
remediation.
Section 3.2.3 Summary
Geoffrey Howe, Shadow Chancellor 1979 exclaimed that „Unless people are able to
earn and keep significant reward for the investment and effort we wish them to put
into our urban deserts, they are just not going to be interested‟ (Howe, 1979, p.10
cited in Atkinsion & Moon 1994).
Therefore self-interest operating through a free market should in this instance be

viewed as a driving force in the remediation of the nation‟s cities. This view point
however chooses to ignore the fundamental fact that:
“The market will not, and cannot, match provision to need or demand. The jobs it
creates will be the ones that meet its needs, not those of the inner cities. It must be
an imperfect response therefore and one that leaves the public sector in a position of
having to service the market, or at least bridge some of the gap between the needs
of the inner cities, and what the market provides”
(Edwards, 1989, p.82)
Towards the end of the 1980s it was beginning to be realised that market
mechanisms alone could not provide a panacea for urban issues, investment and
employment opportunities (OECD 1987, p.22).
Page 28 of 91
Section 4: The Economic Downturn and

Public-Private Stimulus
Section 4.1 The PPP method and economic instability
The economic downturn negatively impacted PPP activity; increasing the component
of risk within partnership-based projects; and exposing the vulnerability in single
source financed schemes (Jannette 2010). It is the purpose of the following section
to investigate: 1) the degree to which public-private operations were effected; and 2)
the ability of the PPP method to operate in times of financial turmoil.
Section 4.2 Market activity: partnership confidence and spending
The (financial) crisis caused a market transformation; shifting from a buyer to a seller
controlled forum. The collapse of inter-bank lending resulted in a severe liquidity
shortage resulting in turn a „spike- increase‟ in margins and fees (Thadden 2009).
This occurred simultaneously with a 58% reduction in PFI activity across Europe in
the first half of 2009; seeing 120 PPP/PFI transactions experiencing financial close in
the same year to an estimated value of €15.8 billion (Jannette 2010 – see: Fig 1.3).
Page 29 of 91
European PPP Market 2008-09 (By Value)
Fig 1.3 European PPP Market 2008-09 (By Value)

Source: Thadden 2009
From the second quarter of 2009 P3 activity, experienced a drop of 30% in the
number of PPP signatures across Europe, compared to 70% in the first quarter
(European Policy Evaluation Consortium (EPEC) 2009 cited in Thadden 2009). This
marked increase gave the European PPP Expertise Centre cause to place the credit
crisis at the core of their remediation strategy. The decision to focus on ways of
overcoming the financial downturn resulted in increased multilateral lending; helping
to reposition capital markets in line with the P3 model for infrastructure delivery
(EPEC 2010 cited in Thadden 2009).
Since the severe dip in 2008 there has been a marked recovery in the confidence of
investment and growth in the urban sector throughout 2010. Structural trends are
currently positive for the provision of infrastructure through P3 avenues (OECD,
2010) explained through the following crisis transmission points:
Page 30 of 91
A. Financial markets
 Previously affected pipeline projects are now able to obtain financing

 Project restructuring and renegotiation facilitated
 Renewed availability of credit
 Project finance has begun to rebound since its sharp decline in early 2009
 Renewed investor confidence and liquidity in emerging markets
(Policy response) B. Principles
 Intervention should be justified on economic grounds

 Interventions should support the fiscal policy stance
 Measures should be quantified and included in the budget framework
 Government measures should be contingent on circumstances
 Access to the public purse should come at a price
 Intervention should seek to maintain value for money
 Policy should be publicly disclosed
C. Recent government action and policy developments
 Governments have supported PPP activity through various means:

 Integral component of stimulus packages
 Improving institutional/regulatory framework
 Easing access to credit to specific projects
 Guarantees
 Public financing
Facilitating Access to Credit – Public Funding UK:
 Established a public lender-of-last-resort facility for PPPs under its Private

Finance Initiative, lending £2bn to private firms
(OECD, 2010)
The above points indicate a gradual return to confidence in lending behavior and the
financing of partnership projects. Value for money; budget frameworks; and
Page 31 of 91
transparency are encouraged, all elements marked as key in successful partnership

building (see Sec.2.2.1), the P3 method is also supported as an integral component
of economic stimulus packages. The below figures outline Government‟s stimulus
packages and amounts dedicated to infrastructure mid-crisis:
UK
Infrastructure
£700m on widening motorways and railway investment
Residential
£775m for new social housing and modernisation of existing social housing
Non Residential
£800m on schools £400m on higher and further education £100m on doctors‟
surgeries
Total
£2.8-3bn
Source: UBS estimates as at 23 January 2009
Fig 1.4 Current and projected world infrastructure spending needs
Source: Dupuis, UBS, 2009.
Fig 1.4 shows the projected increase in spending on the world‟s infrastructure. If the
upward trend is set to continue, a solid financial framework is required. The
significant level of growth projected further indicates the potential for the PPP method
to finance infrastructure projects over the coming years.
Page 32 of 91
Section 4.3 Summary
The longevity of the P3 model for delivery is reliant on the ability of existing (funding)
frameworks to continue to function as stimulus packages are gradually phased out.
Furthermore increasing financial costs (of building), not least due to peaking oil
prices (Giles et. al., 2010) requires partnership mechanisms to continually support
infrastructural development (Thadden 2009).
Reductions in bank capacity (lending) and unprecedented lending implications at the

hand of emerging government initiatives concerning; sustainable development,
energy generation, and TENs (Trans-European Netwroks) (Jannette 2010) therefore
requires innovative co-financing initiatives to ensure such projects do not become
stagnant.
The following pair of case studies provide an insight into the funding structures and
institutional relations involved in delivering state-of-the-art urban infrastructure. Both
studies benefit their respective urban environments in differing however crucial ways;
delivering socio-economic betterment with a distinct concern for environmental
preservation.
Page 33 of 91
Section 5: Land Use Planning, Urban

Betterment & Environmental Sustainability
Section 5.1 What are the considerations when developing regeneration

strategies through the partnership financing method?
There a many strands that must be tied together in a comprehensive strategy when
aiming to properly integrate new urban infrastructure. The local environment that is
being developed for serves as a primary consideration; places must be developed
that allow local people to grow, serving their needs with respect to job creation and
economic expansion while satisfying national and global economic priorities; both
central and periphery areas must be planned for and all must be delivered under the
banner of „sustainable development‟.
It is the intention of the following section to outline a series of key areas that are
considered in the delivery of major urban projects; serving both public and private
interests. These areas are then expanded on and supported with the case studies
that follow.
Section 5.2 Strategic planning that considers all
Healey (2006) comments on the challenge of public life with reference to the:
“reconciliation of cultural identity with recognition of commonality between different

individuals with different frames of reference, as well as different frames of interest,
in ways that do not trap us in modes of thought and practice which suppress our
individual capacity to flourish.”
(Healey, 2006)
The realities of the rather utopian concept are acknowledged by the author. However
the question is posed of whether we are able to find a more egalitarian balance in the
Page 34 of 91
structure of strategic planning, that results in a fairer and more considered

distribution of material resources (Healey 2006).
Healey considers the view of philosopher Jurgen Habermas when investigating the
potential to‟ reconstitute the public realm through open, public debate‟. Here
Habermas argues for a „multicultural discourse‟ that emerges from a series of
„cultural reference points‟; „systems of meaning‟ and „modes of reasoning‟. In
Habermas‟ public realm therefore, an open forum for debate is constructed where the
ability to voice opinion is done so in a setting of mutual respect, where concerns
have the chance to be articulated and are explored and responded to in an uncritical
and measured manner. This extends to structured political communities where a
collaborative approach is required in order to validate and communicate further
action steps. Furthering this Habermas outlines his scepticism over a single „knowing
subject‟ representing a wider body of people, who may ultimately be seeking control
with vested interests. This relates to the public or private vs. Public-private debate
and the practice of joined-up thinking in a relationship based on equitable values.
In short Habermas states that:
Neither scientific enquiry, nor the economics of instrumental rationality can provide
„objective criteria‟ outside our debates to which we can appeal en arbitrating
disputes. We must construct our ways of validating claims, identifying priorities, and
developing strategies for collective action, through interaction, through debate.
This view is supplemented by opinion from Social Geographer Peter North (2011)2 in
stating:
“If you have a partnership that is democratic and inclusive and it‟s working with
diversity and it‟s happy with diversity, it‟s not there to implement a top down policy it‟s
genuinely there to implement from the bottom up and it‟s taking the Patsy Healey
collaborative approach – which everybody says is naïve, but I don‟t think is naïve I
think you can absolutely set up a forum for discussion where you say the rules are
that everyone listens respectfully, I‟ve seen it done loads of times, it is possible to do
that …You can certainly use partnership to create spaces for people to do interesting
2
Peter North, Senior Lecturer specialises in people space and place at the n University of Liverpool
School of Environmental Sciences, interview held 13/01/11
Page 35 of 91
things. But I think a lot of the time people are very disrespectful of the knowledge that
(other) people have, they think people don‟t know and they‟re not willing to listen;
[that goes for everybody] communities will often think their community is great and
people down the road are full of rubbish, or that there will be one leader of a
community that thinks they‟re the only one that knows anything about anything and
they treat their community as a resource that they roll out now and then when they
want to get re-elected, or they‟re self appointed. It can be a councilor that thinks
because they got elected on 20% of the vote they have the right to say it all it can be
a planner who thinks because they have a planning degree they know it all and the
community knows nothing, it can be the private sector that‟s got bigoted views about
communities and the public sector; it could be the public sector who has bigoted
views about the private sector. I like this idea of having an openness, I like this idea
of what Patsy Healey talks about, coming from Habermas, of the requirement to
speak clearly and respectfully – I think that makes a better world.”
It is this form of thinking that underpins Habermas‟ theory of communicative action

and communicative theory3.
When considering the structuring of communities and economic activity on a local

scale, the concept of Local Economic Development Strategies (LDS) find their
justification in the support of localised job creation and local economy on a broader
scale. Such a rationale arguably develops the economic assets of places,
contributing to regional, national and international development. Here Healey
highlights the importance of environmental components; social and physical
infrastructure land and property supply in the interests of investment opportunity in a
place. However the variability of these factors due to external political and economic
conditions requires LDS to focus on the development of locality with the intent to
deliver a „new economic capacity‟.
The issue here becomes one of conflicting interests as Healey explains:
“... interests of large inward investors may be very different from those of smaller
firms, while informal sector activity may undercut the opportunities for the firms
providing similar services in the formal sector. If such conflicts of interest are not
3 See: Habermas, J. The Theory of Communicative Action 1981
Page 36 of 91
addressed, the economic opportunities for some firms, and the livelihoods which
depend on these, may unwittingly be compromised.”
(Healey, 2006)
Section 5.2.1 Overview
An understanding of localised economic activity is required in order to produce

successful and sustainable infrastructural development and local economic capacity.
When this is not the case and the preoccupation with economic dominance becomes
apparent, there is a loss of social and environmental consideration giving way to non-
area-specific strategy building. The debate here often turns into one of „planning
versus the market, the economy and the forces of capital.‟ (Healey 2006).
Section 5.3 Land development in central and periphery locations
In a globalising network of expanding firms, city centre sites are considered less for
their potential to add to a place and more as a commodity to be „traded‟. Through a
system of spatial strategies and active „production‟ by local and national government
policy such sites become available that lend themselves to the facilitation and
coordination of new infrastructure and development. These more manufactured
qualities are considered in light of a city‟s existing movement system, recreational
offer and collective social environment (Healey 2006).
However, with such an intense focus on the production of new locations for
development peripheral locations are effected and existing building stock are often
left obsolete; with particular reference to the office and retail sectors. Periphery retail
outlets may have adverse impacts on city centre capital trends. However, the
opposite is also a possibility where dominant new developments in prime, central
locations often displace existing smaller businesses. This situation calls for the inbuilt
adaptability of our urban systems; making a conscious effort to protect „critical nodes‟
of local services while allowing the development of economic capacities.
The standard model of land valuation where competition sites located in urban
centres with land values falling towards the periphery is now superseded by the
complex reality of land and property markets. Where sectoral segmentation of land
Page 37 of 91
uses dominated urban land use format, a mixed-use development approach has
introduced a far less segmented form of regeneration.
(Gregory, R. 1971) The Price of Amenity explored a series of major points of

planning contention during the 1960s: issues of growth and job provision vs. the
concern of environmental quality; public and private interests and goals and
distributive justice are all considered. Gregory‟s work was set against a backdrop of
projects concerning nationalised industries and the conflicts that arose as a result of
diverging interests in public and private development in light of international
economic (globalising) drivers (Owens & Cowell 2002).
Section 5.4 Urban regeneration: working with the concept of ‘sustainable

development’
The contention between environmental and economic wellbeing became crystallised

by Brundtland and the infamous 1987 Commission which highlighted the
fundamental need to continue developing and adapting to an increasingly globalised
community while promoting the concept of Inter-generational equity (Owens &
Cowell, 2002). As a result an increased focus was placed on ecological protection
and enhancement; and the interdependent relationship shared between ecological
and economic factors.
However during the early 1990s as the concept of sustainable development as term
that defined a typology of development experienced difficulty in defining its stance on
economic, social and environmental development. It was felt the term much of the
time represented a rhetorical device to which prescriptive action was applied
(Blowers 2000, p. 371). However irrespective of the falsification of the term its
discursive power reflected in its continued use throughout much contemporary
planning an environmental literature, proves difficult to dismiss (Owens & Cowell,
2002).
Land use planning and its various components prove key elements in delivering
more equitable and sustainable environments; where the (re)modeling of land, a
material base, has the potential to co-ordinate economic, social and environmental
factors. The focus on land-use planning is now shifting towards a more spatial
appreciation for the way in which land is used. The concept of holism is more readily
applied when considering development potential; ensuring aspects of environmental
Page 38 of 91
preservation, and energy provision amongst others are included in the planning and
design of schemes.
However within an increasingly densifying network of global urban centres the

conflicts that arise between neighbouring land uses become ever more apparent.
Furthering this, an escalating amount of emissions as a result of increased
development effectively causes the dissolution of global borders where pollutants
cross national boundaries.
It is important to note that the principles of sustainable development (in the UK) have
not been applied in a vacuum. Therefore critical changes in British political and
economic frameworks have fundamentally altered the way in which the planning
system has been able to respond to the remit of sustainable development (note: the
neo-liberalisation of public goods and the privatisation agenda, encouraging a
deregulation of land use, encouraging commercial development through the
introduction of „enterprise zones‟ - see Sec.3.2.2).
Page 39 of 91
Section 5.1: Case Studies
Section 5.1.1 Introduction to studies
To supplement the discussion on land use and sustainable development a pair of

case studies are provided. Both studies were chosen for their individual merits and
suitability to the direction of research.
Case study 1 was selected for its relation not only to the City of Liverpool but the
North(west) in general. Liverpool has over the past 4 years received a great deal of
public sector regeneration funding that has provided the impetus for a lacking city
region to return to a prosperous urban centre. The featured case study adds a further
component to the rebuilding of the urban core.
The City of London is no stranger to public sector spending and private sector
interest. Case study 2 documents the implementation of a new public transit scheme
that aims to utilize contributions from both public and private bodies in order to
deliver a system that increases the travelling capacity of an extended city region.
Together the following studies explore the ability of the public-private model to add
varying types of infrastructure to conurbations at very different stages of
urbanisation.
Page 40 of 91
Section 5.2.1 Case Study 1: Mann Island
Fig 1.5 A projection of the completed Mann Island Scheme

Source: www.broadwaymalyan.com (accessed: 27/04/11)
Page 41 of 91
Section 5.2.2: Context and project location
Fig 1.6 Map showing the location of Liverpool

Source: Google Maps (accessed: 26/04/11)
Bayley (2010) comments on Warren Bradley in 2009 as Leader of Liverpool City

Council on the resurgence of Liverpool (Fig 1.6) as a global location stating that the
City is “once again being described with superlatives”. Bradley discusses Liverpool‟s
iconic waterfront and UNESCO (United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural
Organisation) status; providing a cultural offering that far exceeds the modestly sized
urban centre (Bayley 2010). The 2008 Capital of Culture award received by the City
contributed £130 million to regeneration initiatives throughout Merseyside not only
helping to support a culturally rich and “unique legacy”, but add to and deliver
infrastructure that makes positive contributions to an already strong urban fabric.
Bradley explicitly refers to the essential partnering of both public and private sectors
in delivering this “new Liverpool” stating how “a phenomenal joint effort demonstrates
a massive commitment to and confidence in the future of this city.” (cited in Bayley
2010).
Page 42 of 91
Key
City centre
zone
Site Location
Fig 1.7 Aerial view of Liverpool city centre highlighting the site location of the
Mann Island project
Source: Google Maps (accessed: 26/04/11)
Fig 1.8 A projection of the finished Mann Island scheme showing the projects
relation to Liverpool‟s Pier Head
Source: www.broadwaymalyan.com (accessed: 27/04/11)
Page 43 of 91
Section 5.2.3 The theory and operations behind the project
The Mann Island project is a £120 million commercially centred mixed-use

development, located at the core of the waterfront (Fig 1.7) world heritage site.
Broadway Malyan (BM) Architects were commissioned in 2005 to suggest design
schemes for joint venture clients Neptune Developments and Countryside properties;
following the collapse of earlier proposals for a „Fourth Grace‟4 accompanied by a
site masterplan from Liverpool Vision, the City Council and site owners the North
West Development Agency.
The aim for the site since its consideration for redevelopment has been one of a
mixed use hub that would act as a pivotal point between the Pier Head, Albert Dock
and more inland city centre locations (Fig 1.8). The final BM proposal:
“…consists of three buildings; three new public spaces, one of which one is covered;
a new canal basin; and extensive basement parking. It includes 367 apartments; a
13,000 m2 net office building; 6,500 m2 of retail and leisure space; and 1,200 m2 of
covered public space.”(Fig 1.9)
(www.mannislandapaertments.co.uk – accessed: 27/04/11)
An interview5 with Lead Architect and Director of the Liverpool and Manchester
studios Matt provides the case study with additional clarity regarding the production
of the scheme; sensitivity of design; and its contribution to the regeneration and
rebranding of a city.
4 The term „Three Graces‟ is given to the current trio of buildings on the site of the previous George‟s
Dock namely the Royal Liver Building, Cunard Building and Port of Liverpool Building.
5 Interview held 21/12/10
Page 44 of 91
BLOCK 3
Fig 1.9 A site plan of the Mann Island project showing: Block 1/the Latitude
Building; Block 2/the Longitude Building; and Block 3, a non-
residential commercial block
Source: www.mannislandapaertments.co.uk – accessed: 27/04/11
Despite the project initially being a 50/50 joint venture contract between a pair of
private sector bodies the NWDA provided funding for Pier Head public realm works.
Brook commented on the relationships between designer, developer and public
sector partners in a positive light, highlighting the element of compromise in stating
that:
“…any scheme has compromises, any scheme trying to see an architectural concept
through to completion by the very nature ends up with compromise. But there is as
Page 45 of 91
little compromise on Mann Island as I think you could ever hope for and the client‟s
always been very supportive and very aspirational about the importance of that site
they‟ve always taken very seriously the responsibility of developing that site because
it‟s a legacy site for the city of Liverpool and for their reputation as developers. So
they‟ve always been very supportive and they‟ve completely understood the level of
quality that the scheme is going to have to meet.”
Furthering this, the fact that the project is working on a „Design and Build‟ (D&B)
contract is considered as a more pressing issue when considering the element of
compromise between project partners. Brook exclaims that „the way a building is
procured, whether by D&B contract or traditional contract, from understanding that
(the procurement method) a great deal is revealed with regards to the pressures a
scheme will experience as it goes through to construction.‟
To supplement the cost of the project to the private sector often, at the prospect of
private funding gaps, various (predominantly public realm) elements throughout the
scheme are supported through public subsidy. The winter garden and public realm
(Fig 2.0) received public funding along with Block 3. Grant funding was also used for
the covered public realm, public sector intervention played a key role in the way the
residual land value was agreed.6
Fig 2.0 Public realm work centred around the Canning Dock
Source: Author
6 Analyzing cross funding based on residual land values associated with a high quality scheme;
presenting a process that contains capped maximum developers profits and an overage agreement.
Page 46 of 91
The major funding gap of public knowledge on the site was concerned with Block 3
(Fig 1.9) of the Mann Island scheme. Brook helps in explaining how the gap in
funding arose as a result of Mersey Travel, at a late stage in the property allocation
(and funding package) process, deciding not to occupy Block 3 in its entirety leaving
a shortfall of three floors. At such a late stage planning consent was not going to be
granted to alter the scheme in such a fundamental fashion; Liverpool Vision
intervened bridging a £1 million funding gap which enabled the scheme to continue.
Beyond the funding structure of partnership operation the purpose of this paper is to
analyse the potential for partnership models to impact urban environments in a
positive manner. Brook discussed the implications for the scheme and for
architectural innovation in the North as a result of strategic regeneration initiatives.
The scheme as an asset that delivers social cohesion and economic drive aims to
contribute to the existing city fabric in an integral fashion. On receipt of the public
realm – canal basin commission,7 Brook and the rest of the BM team set about
delivering an element of the project that would prove far more intrinsic and
complementary to the finished commission than the massing envelope initially
proposed. Brook explained how the concept of the scheme and manifestation of the
initial sketch emerged from a series of responses to the context; with four key
aspirations from the start:
– connecting the city to the historic waterfront;

– preserving key views;
– deal with a micro climate;
– most important outcome of the urban design analysis was that (Brook) didn‟t
believe the site was one for a „fourth grace‟ it isn‟t a fourth grace site.
Brook further explains the logical progression of the scheme design and its relation
and contribution to the existing city fabric in stating that:
“The site is a hinge point between the „Three Graces‟ (Figs 2.1 and 2.2) and the
Albert Dock and that‟s probably the most important thing, in urban design terms
that‟s what the function of that site has to be.
7 Previously in the control of the city public realm works were handed over to BM with the intent to
deliver increase cohesion and fluidity throughout the scheme.
Page 47 of 91
There was always a tendency to ask the question „what is that site is it part of the
pier head?‟ „Is it part of the Albert Dock?‟ Well, the answer is it‟s neither. It‟s a
fulcrum point between the two. And historically at a fundamental level why would you
consider a fourth grace when everybody knows that an odd number is a good
composition. People have three flying ducks on the wall three ornaments on the
mantel piece so why imbalance that composition on the waterfront?
Fig 2.1 The Liver, Cunard and Port of Liverpool Buildings alternatively know
as the „Three Graces‟
Source: Author
Then more substantially the dockscape is all man-made, all reclaimed land so the
natural topography has dictated the way that the process of reclamation has
happened. Over time that land reclamation and that dockscape has dictated the way
in which built forms come forward; so the three graces sit on what was actually the
Georges Dock which was infill and therefore almost perfectly now represent the
Georges Dock and Georges Dock passage.
Now our site was always the Manchester Dock a very different geometry, a very
different dockscape. So of course it would have been a perversion of the natural
Page 48 of 91
development of the dockscape to carry that composition across into what was always
a very different area. City‟s have got a natural evolution to them as Liverpool has
had, has.
Some people think that a design starts with a sketch, but it doesn‟t. It doesn‟t really
start with a sketch a design starts before that, there‟s a thought process that leads to
it I guess.”
Fig 2.2 A view from the 13th floor of Block 3 showing the partially completed
Blocks 1 and 2 and their relation to the Port of Liverpool building
opposite
Source: Author
Page 49 of 91
Section 5.2.4 Case study 1 conclusions
The case for place specific regeneration strategies and the importance of geographic
location when expanding a portfolio of urban assets is perfectly represented in the
Mann Island project. When questioned on the implications of the scheme for the
North (West) of England a number of points became prevalent that highlighted the
importance of delivering high quality urban assets. Senior planner Christian Neilsen
of Building Design Partnership (BDP) commented on the importance of design
quality and efficiency of delivery through PPP mechanisms in saying:
“In theory I‟m biased being an urban designer but I think design quality is
fundamental, in terms of the benefits for the private and the public sector. If you have
a retail development that is mapped out according to retail circuits and interlinked
into the city like Liverpool One8 that‟s good for the commercial elements of the
scheme, but also if those routes and spaces are attractive and lively and vibrant and
safe, then there‟s the public benefit there. So it‟s a win win situation and its certainly
fundamental as opposed to it being a purely private scheme where those more
philanthropic elements of high quality public realm, add on things that make it more
attractive as a place, may be cut back in terms of value engineering. If it was a purely
public scheme, you may even have the same thing because there isn‟t the money for
the quality, or to create the value. So I would say in public private circumstance
design is fundamental.” 9
The need for further schemes of exemplar quality was pointed out as a prominent
factor in reducing the funding gap and wider economic implications for the delivery of
urban assets in the North. A journalist writing for the Creative Times reviewed the
Mann Island scheme10 and stated that the current focus on urban assets leading the
way to urban change is very Londoncentric, and that the advent of high quality, world
class architecture in the North, represented in the Mann Island scheme, has the
potential to act as a catalyst for wider interest in Northern cities and their potential
growth.
8 Liverpool city centre mixed-use development

9
Christian Nielsen, Senior Planner, BDP Planning , Architecture and Urbanism; Interview: 10/01/11
10 http://www.creativetimes.co.uk/articles/what-s-the-future-in-architects-dreaming - accessed: 05/03/11
Page 50 of 91
Section 5.3.1 Case Study 2: Crossrail
Fig 2.3 Projection of the finished Crossrail station at Canary Wharf

Source: www.project.millerhare.com – accessed: 26/04/11
Page 51 of 91
Section 5.3.2: Context and project location
Fig 2.4 Map showing the location of London

Source: Google Maps (2011)
Transport policy and planning has faced remodeling as a result of the prolific use of
privately owned vehicles post war time leading to serious implications for social and
environmental welfare. Settlement and development trends have since led to
unsustainable lifestyles reflected by government policy acknowledging; „excessive
travel by car‟ and stating that „large scale road investment is no longer seen as a
solution‟ (European Conference of Ministers of Transport (ECMT) and OECD 1995:
13 cited in Owens & Cowell 2002).
The UK Round Table on Sustainable Development government agency established

in 1995, produced discourse on transport at a critical time with growing concern over
climate change phenomena. The „Great Transport Debate‟ launched by Dr. Brian
Mawhinney Secretary of State for Transport (1995) (Mawhinney 1995; Department of
Transport (DoT) 1996) transport policy and planning and subsequent restructuring of
Page 52 of 91
such policy sparked discussion over alternatives to road travel and projected
increases in traffic volumes.
During the 1990‟s the concept of integrated transport systems became realigned
under the growing concept of sustainability. Recognising the interdependencies
between patterns of land-use, transport infrastructure and corresponding
environments, a growing conscience led to the acknowledgement that ill practice in
development control decisions may have adverse impacts on local and global
environments; not least contributing to the increasing case for climate change
(Owens & Cowell 2002).
In considering a wider scope of those impacted by speculative development the UK

Integrated Transport White Paper (Department for the Environment, Transport and
the Regions11 (DETR) 1998f: para 4.204 cited in Owens & Cowell 2002) exclaimed
how planners would adopt more of a concern for the „functions of natural and cultural
environments‟ over previous efforts to mitigate and simply identify potential threats.
Below: Table 5.1 (UK Planning Policy Guidance on Transport (Planning Policy
Guidance note (PPG 13), 1994)
Planning and land-use policies should:
 Promote development within urban areas, at locations highly accessible by

means other than the private car;
 Locate major generators of travel demand in existing centres which are highly
accessible by means other than the private car;
 Strengthen existing local centres and aim to protect and enhance their
viability and vitality;
 Maintain and improve choice for people to walk, cycle or use public transport
rather than drive between homes and facilities which they need to visit
regularly;
(Source: Department of the Environment (DoE) and DfT 1994: extracts from
paras 1.7 and 1.8)
11 Now the Department for Transport (DfT)
Page 53 of 91
The ability for partnership roles in creating financial pathways for the provision of
transport infrastructure is now more essential than ever. With a continuing trend of
deep spending cuts spanning all sectors of public investment, questions arise of
whether sustainable living and the innovative development of our urban centres will
suffer as a result.
The London based (Fig 2.4) Crossrail project is used as a container to explore and
better detail the potential for partnership financing to rebuild or further connect more
socially cohesive urban centres.
Section 5.3.3 Purpose of the project and method of delivery
The Crossrail project is a high frequency train line linking Maidenhead and Heathrow
in the West to Shenfield and Abbey Wood in the East (via twin tunnels running under
central London – see Fig 2.5); critically integrating the City of London and Canary
Wharf to an increased number of commuters.
The primary intent of the Crossrail scheme is to expedite travel times across the city
region while reducing daily congestion level on London‟s transport network, with a
carrying capacity in excess of 1500 passengers per train at peak periods
(http://www.crossrail.co.uk/railway/ - accessed: 08/04/11).
Page 54 of 91
Fig 2.5 Regional Map showing the Crossrail route

Source: www.crossrail.co.uk accessed: 24/03/11
Page 55 of 91
In addition to increased passenger comfort and mobility the scheme is being

implemented with a premise of „substantial economic benefits‟ not only to the South-
East but throughout the UK; where Transport for London (TfL, Aug 2010) project a
£42 billion estimate benefit as a result of completion of the rail scheme. Royal Ascent
was granted in 2008 with work commencing in 2009 and the estimated completion
date as of April 2011 set for the second quarter 2018
(http://www.crossrail.co.uk/railway/timeline accessed: 24/03/11).
A contribution from Andrew Phipps12 Transport Planner and Crossrail project leader
for the Greater London Authority Department of Transport Planning helps better
illustrate the funding structure and potential social and economic benefits of the
scheme.
Phipps commented on the outline funding structure of the project as being split into
equal thirds; where the Mayor‟s contribution is the greatest, followed by a lesser
Government contribution and an again less substantial contribution from the private
sector. Prior to the Government giving the go-ahead for the scheme they required
Crossrail to cut the cost of the project; reviewing the scope of the proposal and the
methods of construction; the result a sum of £1 billion was value engineered off of
the original projected costing.
When questioned on the potential of the project to provide impetus for economic
regeneration Phipps stated that although the scheme is designed to meet a current
shortfall in the capacity of the current transport network, economic betterment, of
both central and more periphery areas is an integral component of the concept.13
“We always major on the fact that having a highly concentrated business district is
what is attractive; this is why international companies want to come and invest in
12 Interview held 16/02/11

13 Phipps uses the example of development around the Jubilee line and corresponding rising property
values together with the backing of the Canary Wharf group stating that this „vital piece of infrastructure‟
will „release more development potential.‟
th
Cullingworth B. & Naden V. (2006) Town and Country Planning in the UK 14 Ed. p. 419-420,
Routeledge, London. 2006.
“A study by Jones Lang LaSalle in 2004 predicted a £2.8bn increase in land value surrounding station
extensions along the Jubilee line. The raising of land values around the London-centric rail network
th th
enabled much of the infrastructural development in the 19 and 20 centuries.”
Page 56 of 91
London because they know they can be next door to a company in the same
industry.“
Fig 2.6 A projection of the finished station at Canary Wharf

Source: www.archicentral.com accessed: 24/04/11
The theory behind the project is based on a critical mass and agglomeration of
services balanced with overcrowding relief on an east-west axis. The intent of the
Crossrail scheme is not to create a modal shift as the majority of commuters into
central London (Fig 2.6) already arrive by public transport. The fundamental aim is to
increase accessibility to the city centre; while Phipps acknowledges the argument for
bringing people away from their respective periphery areas to central London he
exclaims that the City Corp has a remit that ensures the City remains the world‟s
number one business and financial centre.
“The fact that people at Canary Wharf are so keen to have Crossrail - they see this
as a vital piece of infrastructure to release more development potential.”
(Phipps 2011)
Page 57 of 91
Overview Figures:
Current Project Cost: £15.9 bn
Government Capital Grant: £5.64 bn
TfL Obligation: £7.74 bn
Funding Gap: £2.52 bn (to be secured through; Members of the Canary Wharf
Group; BAA; The City of London Corporation; and Berkeley Homes).
(Greater London Authority Dept for Transport 2011)
Fig 2.7 (below) serves to provide further clarity to the relationships between funding
parties of the Crossrail project. The illustration has been adapted from the original
(provided by the GLA DfT) for the purpose of this dissertation; now explicitly stating
the public/private nature of stakeholders.
Project Ownership Structure
Government Mayor of London
Cross London
Network Rail DfT Rail Links
Access
Charge
s Nominated
Train Operating Undertakers
Companies
Fares
Lenders Grants
Passengers
Equity Investors
Public Bodies
Private Bodies
Public/Private Involvement
Page 58 of 91
Fig 2.7 Crossrail ownership structure defining public- private involvement

Source: Greater London Authority Dept. for Transport and Planning;
adapted by Author
The relationship between sustainability and economic theory; policy; and the building
of infrastructure guided by the premise of environmental preservation is further
articulated by Social and Political Geographer Peter North14:
“I think the argument that if you set up infrastructure to allow people to live
sustainably (in reference to Crossrail), that‟s far more effective than yelling and
whining at them (the public) and using moral arguments. If the bus is there and it‟s
cheap and it‟s reliable and driving the car is hard then people will get on buses,
otherwise they won‟t … So partnerships can be used to design good policy, but it‟s
the policy when it interacts with the real world the economy, and free people making
their own choices, that‟s when it gets interesting.” (North, P. 2011)
Section 5.4 Epilogue
From the above studies it is clear that public-private financed projects have the
potential to provide increased levels of competitiveness to city regions; adding to a
cultural legacy while developing a capacity for growth.
Major public-private projects that attempt to fundamentally alter the existing city
fabric are often met, aside from local planning departments, by local authority and
(quasi) governmental figures, who ensure the needs and requirements of the
town/city in which development is to occur are met.
As researched in the earlier technical analysis of the PPP method (see Sec 2), a
transparent dialogue between both public and private bodies throughout the design
and building process prove critical to the success of a scheme.
14 Peter North: Senior Lecturer; University of Liverpool School of Environmental Sciences; Specialises
in People Space and Place. Interview: 13/01/11
Page 59 of 91
Section 6: Conclusion: the public-private

model and the way forward
„Does the public-private partnership model have the ability to support the
delivery of urban-infrastructure in light of recent market failures?’
The content of this paper has aimed to clarify prevalent urban issues in the context of
an ever changing contemporary world. It has been outlined that the cause for and
current state of public-private investment is a result of shifting economic, political,
social and environmental priorities. Furthermore, it has been explained that at the
core of these investment frameworks is the potential to deliver high-quality
components; creating better functioning cities, within the parameters of
environmental sustainability; boosting the nations infrastructural capital.
When considering the technical abilities of the planning system and policy
intervention partnerships which work towards making better places should operate
under the premise of holism. When drawing up potential public-private schemes,
pooling resources and funds, development should not be carried out with the mere
intention of utilising tax waivers or government backed enterprise incentives.
The P3 model provides the opportunity for added financial management, cost and
time efficiency. Delivering equity in risk allocation, spreads the burden of delivery
pressures. A sharing of responsibility is matched with the potential to accommodate
creative approaches through a shared vision; ultimately adding value to a scheme,
providing high quality urban assets ubiquitous in more southern regions.
It is not solely the job of the private sector to address issues of urban decline and
environmental depletion, to think this would be naïve and wrong. Public inclusion and
political input is required in order to design solutions that gain social approval and
promote the dissemination of best practice on economic stabilisation and growth and
environmental development.
Page 60 of 91
The private sector has the ability to provide an impetus which the public sector must
embrace, and bridge, in order to continually progress urban environments.
“We‟re in the north of England and I think we have a very different set of
circumstances to the south. I think the north still is reliant on the public sector, and
that‟s in general across the whole economy. I think in terms of development in both
the North and the South, the public sector is instrumental, it is providing for the public
good, the private sector is there to make money, essentially. The public sector is to
ensure in terms of development that there is a public benefit to it (the development).
The private sector, of course it has been instrumental in terms of paying for and
delivering development, but then it has been underwritten by substantial funding from
government, if you take Liverpool for example we had the Objective One15 funding.
So especially now, in these harsher times, I don‟t think the private sector is strong
enough to single handedly take on financial responsibility.”
(Nielsen 2011)
15
A source of (public sector) European Structural funding see:
http://www.liv.ac.uk/news/press_releases/2010/03/impacts_report.htm
Page 61 of 91
Appendix A: Bibliography
Ed. Akintoye, A. Beck, Matthias. Hardcastle, C. (2003) Public-Private Private

Partnerships: Managing risks and opportunities Blackwell, Oxford.
Atkinson R. & Moon G. (1994) Urban Policy in Britain: The City, the State and the
Market Macmillan, London.
Audit Commission (1989) Urban Regeneration and Economic Development: The

Local Government Dimension HMSO, London.
Bennett R. & Krebs G. (1991) Local Economic Development Public-private

Partnership Initiatives in Britain and Germany. Belhaven Press, London.
Bayley, S. (2010) Liverpool: Shaping the City RIBA Publishing, London.
Benedict Clements Division Chief Fiscal Affairs Department International Monetary

Fund (April 12-13, 2010) The Impact of the Global Financial Crisis on Public-Private
Partnerships OECD, Paris.
Blowers, A. (2000) Ecological and political modernization: the challenge for planning,
4: 371-93 - Town Planning Review 71,
Boddy, M. & Parkinson, M. (2004) City Matters: Competitiveness, cohesion and

urban governance Policy Press, Bristol.
Bult-Spiering, M., Dewulf, G. (2006) Strategic issues in Public-Private Partnerships.

An international perspective Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Oxford, UK.
The Brundtland (1987) Commission Our Common Future Oxford University press,
Oxford.
Carroll P., & Steane P. (2000) Public-private partnerships: sectoral perspectives. In:
Public – Private Partnerships: Theory and Practice in International Perspective (ed.
S. Osborne), pp. 36-56. Routledge, London.
Page 62 of 91
Confederation of British Industry (CBI) (1988) Initiatives Beyond Charity: report of the
CBI Task Force on business and urban regeneration, London.
Cowan, R. (2005), Dictionary of Urbanism, Tilsbury, Streetwise Press.

DETR (Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions) (1998f) A New Deal
for Transport: Better for Everyone, Cmnd 3950, Stationery Office, London.
Cullingworth B. & Naden V. (2006) Town and Country Planning in the UK 14th Ed. p.
419-420, Routeledge, London.
Davies, J. & Ghani, A. (February 2006) Private Finance Initiative (PFI) school
procurement; Analysis of a DTI survey of English Local Authorities, DTI, London.
DoT (Department of Transport) (1996) Transport, the Way Forward: The

Government‟s Response to the Transport Debate, Cmnd 3234, HMSO, London.
DoE (Department of Environment) & DoT (Department of Transport) (1994) Planning

Policy Guidance Note 13 (PPG 13): Transport HMSO, London.
ECMT (European Conference of Ministers of Transport) and OECD (Organisation for

Economic Co-operation and Development) (1995) Urban Travel and Sustainable
Development, OECD Publications Service, Paris.
Edwards J. (1989) From Whitehall Strategy to Local Impact in Aldridge, B. and

Edwards J. Living with Inner City Policies Royal Holloway and Bedford New College,
London.
Dr Goetz von Thadden, (3-4 December 2009) The Financial Crisis and the PPP
Market European PPP Expertise Centre (EPEC), Regional Conference on
Concessions and Public-Private Partnerships, Zagreb.
Ford R. & Zussman D. (1997) Alternative Service Delivery: Sharing Governance in

Canada. Institute of public Administration of Canada, Ottawa.
Gregory, R. (1971) The Price of Amenity: Five Studies in Conservation and

Government Macmillan, London.
Page 63 of 91
Healey. P. (2006) Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies

Palgrave-Macmillan, Hampshire.
Howe, G. (14 September, 1979) Throw the Inner Cities Wide Open Initiative Estate
Times, London. (pp.10 -11)
Hutchinson, J. & Foley, P. (1994) Partnerships in Local Economic Development: The

Management Issues - Management Research News, Vol. 17 Iss: 7/8/9, pp.50 – 54,
MCB UP Ltd
Online:
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=1647805
accessed: 26/04/11
Heinecke, B. (2002) Involvement of Small and Medium Sized Enterprises

in the Private Realisation of Public Buildings, Freiberg.
Online:
http://fak6.tu-
freiberg.de/fileadmin/Fakultaet6/alleArbeitspapiere25.9.2008/paper/2002/winter_09_
2002.pdf
accessed: 26/04/11
Leach S. and Wilson D. (2000) Local Political Leadership, The Policy Press, Bristol.
Leadbeater, C. (2008), We Think-Mass Innovation not Mass Production, Profile

Books, London.
Malhotra, A.K. (December, 33-35, 1997) Private participation in infrastructure:

lessons from Asia‟s power sector - Finance and Development Vol. 34 No. 4 London.
Mawhinney, B. (1995) Transport: The Way Ahead, DoT, London.
Menzies, Walter (2010) Partnership: no one said it would be easy - Town Planning
Review: Centenary 2010 Vol. 81(4) - i-iiv, Liverpool.
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development OECD (1987), Revitalising

Urban Economies OECD, Paris.
Page 64 of 91
Owens, S. & Cowell, R.(2002) Land and limits: interpreting sustainability in the
planning process Routledge, London.
Peters B. (1998) With a little help from our friends: public-private partnerships and
institutions and instruments - Partnerships in Urban Governance: European and
American Experience (ed. J. Pierre), pp. 11-33. Macmillan, London.
Roger Tym and Partners (1984) Monitoring Enterprise Zones, Year Three Report
Roger Tym and Partners, London.
Savitch H. (1998) The ecology of public-private partnerships: Europe, - Partnerships

in Urban Governance: European and American Experience (ed. J. Pierre), pp. 175-
186. Macmillan, London.
Wilkinson, S. and Reed, R. (2008) Property Development 5th Edition Routledge,

London.
FT Weekend /Saturday – Sunday 23-24/10/10 – Skyscrapers to rise from the rubble:

Mothballed plans are revived Fresh vote of confidence in City Daniel Thomas,
Property Correspondent.
FT Weekend /Saturday – Sunday 30-31/10/10 – Small steps on path towards growth

– Economy Watch – Daniel Pimlott, Economics Reporter
FT Weekend /Saturday – Sunday 30-31/10/10 – Is it worth it?- Carl Wilkinson
Financial Times, Tuesday 5/ 5/11 Oil reaches sterling record Chris Giles, Javier Blas
and Sylvia Pfeifer
The Sunday Times, 13/03/11 Can we build Thatcher‟s spirit of enterprise again?
David Joyner, Barry Gorner, Roger Crump
http://www.archicentral.com/construction-of-crossrail-begins-as-foundations-laid-for-
new-canary-wharf-station-london-18850/
accessed: 24/04/11
http://www.broadwaymalyan.com/projects/skills/residential--mixed-use/mann-island
accessed: 27/04/11
Page 65 of 91
http://www.creativetimes.co.uk/articles/what-s-the-future-in-architects-dreaming -
accessed: 05/03/11
www.crossrail.co.uk accessed: 24/03/11
http://www.crossrail.co.uk/assets/library/document/r/original/routeregionalmapmay20
09.pdf
accessed: 08/03/04
http://www.crossrail.co.uk/railway/timeline - accessed: 24/03/11
http://www.crossrail.co.uk/railway/ - accessed: 08/04/11
www.google.co.uk/maps - accessed: 26/04/11
www.groundwork.org.uk – accessed: 26/04/11
http://www.liv.ac.uk/news/press_releases/2010/03/impacts_report.htm
accessed: 12/04/11
http://www.mannislandapartments.co.uk/index.php?public/site-plan
accessed: 27/04/11
http://project.millerhare.com/public/image/publicimage.asp?711928
accessed: 26/04/11
Page 66 of 91
Appendix B: Public-Private Partnership Research Contact Details
Organisation Point of Contact/ Details Feedback Additional Notes

European Institute Prof. Michael Parkinson CBE Introductory email Response
(Director)
for Urban affairs sent: answered with
European Institute for Urban Affairs 11/12/10 19:49 follow-up email
Liverpool John Moores University
however contact
51 Rodney Street
Liverpool L1 9AT Response on failed to
04/01/11 11:55 feedback.
Telephone: +44 (0) 151-231-5172
Fax: +44 (0) 0151-708-0650
Email:
m.h.parkinson@ljmu.ac.uk
Broadway Malyan Matt Brook (Principal Architect) Introductory email Semi-structured
Architects Claire Barnbrock (secretary) sent: interview held in
Broadway Malyan 09/12/10 12:54 the Broadway
20 Chapel Street
Malyan
Liverpool L3 9AG
Arranged meeting Liverpool studio
Tel: +44 (0)151 600 3500 for 17/12/10 at
Email: 15:00 At the time of
m.brook@broadwaymalyan.com
interview the
c.barnbrock@broadwaymalyan.com
Mann Island
Scheme was
due for
st
handover 1
quarter 2012
Building Design Christian Nielsen (Senior Planner) Introductory email Semi-structured
Partnership sent: interview held in
BDP
03/01/11 13:03 the BDP
1A, Kenyon‟s Steps
One Park West Liverpool studio
Chavasse Park
Arranged meeting
Liverpool L1 3DF
for 10/01/11 at At the time of
Tel: +44 (0)151 709 6865
11:00 interview the
Fax: (0)151 709 6615
Email: Liverpool 1
christian.nielsen@bdp.com
scheme had
been open for a
period of over
two years
(29/05/08)
University of Dr. Peter North Introductory email Semi-structured

(Senior Lecturer)
Liverpool School sent: interview held in
Page 67 of 91
of Environmental Department of Geography, 11/12/10 06:47 the Roxby

Roxby Building,
Sciences Building,
University of Liverpool,
Liverpool L69 7ZT, Arranged meeting University of
United Kingdom
for 13/01/11 at Liverpool
Tel:+44 151 794 2849 14:00
Fax number: +44 151 794 2866 Email
address:
p.j.north@liverpool.ac.uk
City of London Andrew Phipps Introductory phone Semi-structured

call: interview held in
(Strategic Transportation Team Leader)
08/02/11 the North Wing
of the City of
Planning and Transportation Arranged meeting London Guildhall
for 16/02/11 at
City of London
PO Box 270 14:30 At the time of
Guildhall
interview the
London EC2P 2EJ
completion date
Tel: 020 7332 3229 for the Crossrail
Fax: 020 7332 1806
project was set
rd
Email: as 3 quarter
www.andrewphipps@cityoflondon.gov.uk 2018, with
preliminary
works underway
as of 2009
Crossrail (Unknown) Introductory phone -
Helpdesk Tel: 0345 602 3813 call:
Email:
08/02/11
helpdesk@crossrail.co.uk
Referred to the
City of London
Planning and
Transportation
Department
Canary Wharf (Unknown) No response -
Online Submission box
Group Initial contact:
Canary Wharf Group PLC 08/02/11
One Canada Square
Canary Wharf
London E14 5AB
Tel: 020 7418 2000

Fax: 020 7418 2222
Email:
info@canarywharf.com
Grosvenor (Unknown) No response -

Liverpool Initial contact:
Grosvenor
Page 68 of 91
1 Kenyon‟s Steps 03/01/11

Liverpool L13DF
Tel: +44 (0)151 232 3210

Fax: +44 (0)151 232 3217
Email: (online mail form)
Tower Hamlets (Unknown) No response -

Council Initial contact:
Tower Hamlets Council 08/02/11
Town Hall
Mulberry Place
5 Clove Crescent E14 2BG
Tel: 020 7364 5009

Email: (online mail form)
City of (Unknown) No response -

Online comment box
Westminster Initial contact:
Council P.O. Box 240 08/02/11
Westminster City Hall
64 Victoria Street
London SW1E 6PQ
Tel: 020 7641 600

Email:
info@westminster.gov.uk
Page 69 of 91
Appendix C: Interview Transcripts
Interviewee:
Matt Brook
Director, Principal Architect
Broadway Malyan Architects
Date Held:
21/12/10
(Introductions; clarification of the purpose for interview; announce that the

interview will be recorded and request the permission of the interviewee to
publish recorded material in the dissertation to follow)
What was the planning team for the scheme?
The planning team included, Taylor Young (at the preliminary stages) however not
much planning support was provided, the Council had already bought into the
scheme therefore they were playing more of a coordinating or administrative role in
the overseeing of planning operations.
What is the concept behind the project?
There was an EDAW masterplan for the pier head which originally extended through
and encompassed the canal basin in Mann Island, however the original configuration
was very different to what is there now.
As the project evolved I became unhappy, as with the then current geometry where
essentially the original canal basin had been designed within the context of a blank
site. It didn‟t really work, it was a back to front way of designing the canal basin
where you didn‟t know what the space was going to be like or how it was going to be
defined around it. So the City were happy to flip the commission over to Broadway
Malyan and I led the design on that element aswell. I could then design the canal
Page 70 of 91
basin to fit in with the language and the geometry of the scheme. And it is isolated
enough from the scheme on the pier head where it didn‟t have to have any
relationship to that scheme directly – where previously a massing envelope was
assigned to the site which had no relation to the finished scheme and so didn‟t fit with
the current site geometry.
The original (Mann Island) sketch is the manifestation of the idea, of the concept –
but the idea really is a series of responses to the context. So there were 4 key
aspirations to the start of Mann Island:
– connecting the city to the historic waterfront;

– preserving key views;
– dealing with a micro-climate;
– the most important outcome of the urban design analysis was that I didn‟t
believe the site was one for a „fourth grace‟ it isn‟t a fourth grace site.
The site is a hinge point between the three graces and the Albert Dock and actually
that‟s probably the most important thing – and in urban design terms that‟s what the
function of that site has to be.
There was always a tendency to ask the question what is that site? Is it part of the
Pier Head? Is it part of the Albert Dock? Well the answer is it‟s neither it‟s a fulcrum
point between the two. And historically at a fundamental level why would you
consider a fourth grace when everybody knows that an odd number is a good
composition, people have three flying ducks on the wall three ornaments on the
mantel piece so why imbalance that composition on the waterfront? And then more
substantially the dockscape is all manmade, all reclaimed land so the natural
topography has dictated the way that reclamation‟s happened. Over time that land
reclamation and that dockscape has dictated the way in which built forms come
forward so actually the three graces sit on what was actually the Georges dock which
was infill – so they almost perfectly now represent the Georges dock and Georges
dock passage, the inlet on our site between block three and block two, that runs
through and connects to the Gorges dock. Now our site was always the Manchester
dock a very different geometry, a very different dockscape so of course it would have
been a perversion of the natural development of the dockscape to carry that
composition across into what was always a very different area; because cities have
got a natural evolution to them somehow and Liverpool has had and it would just be
a kind of perversion to take that composition across.
Page 71 of 91
Some people think that a design starts with a sketch, but it doesn‟t. It doesn‟t really
start with a sketch a design starts before that, there‟s a thought process that leads to
it I guess.
Who are the funding parties behind the scheme?
Neptune and countryside properties involved in a 50/50 JV (Joint venture) contract,

they‟ve been helped out with public contributions; the NWDA provided funding for
Pier Head works.
(a) How was your relationship with developer?

(b) Did it involve much compromise?
It was very positive I suppose, compared to any other scheme. I mean any scheme
has compromises, any scheme trying to see an architectural concept through to
completion by the very nature ends up with compromise. But there is as little
compromise on Mann Island as I think you could ever hope for and the client‟s
always been very supportive, the client‟s always been very aspirational about the
importance of that site they‟ve always taken very seriously the responsibility of
developing that site because it‟s a legacy site for the City and for Liverpool, and for
their reputation as developers. So they‟ve always been very supportive and they‟ve
completely understood the level of quality that the scheme is going to have to meet.
More the level of compromise comes with the fact that it‟s a DnB (Design and Build)
process, it‟s very challenging to develop and deliver quality with a DnB contract. So
more the challenge is to ensure that what is built is in line with the original proposals.
The way a building is procured whether by DnB contract or a traditional contract;

from understanding that it‟s going to tell you a lot about the pressures that (individual)
scheme is going to be under as it goes through to construction.
(Break while Matt answers a phone call – after 20 minutes the interview
resumes)
Page 72 of 91
How did the public funding contribute?
Various bits, there were four elements. The winter garden and public realm had
NWDA public funding along with Block 3. Grant funding was also used for the
covered public realm, the fourth element was concerned with the way the residual
land value was agreed.
Cross funding (for the project ) in the ways that the land values are arrived at
because you‟re looking at residual land values based on a very high quality scheme
– and where that leaves the land value because then it‟s a kind of open book process
with a capped maximum developers profit and then there‟s an overage agreement .
So thats the kind of broad brush view of things – not spot on.
Public realm works received most of the funding the rest of the scheme remained
predominantly privately led.
Were there any issues with time sensitivity and the delivery of the project?
The base of block 1 due for handover in a month – quite a bit is commercially
sensitive.
Gaps in funding streams?
The one of public knowledge was a gap on Block 3 and then Liverpool Vision or the
NWDA I think it was Liverpool Vision stepped in with a grant. There was a gap on
funding on Block 3 because Mersey travel at the 11th hour decided they didn‟t want
the whole building. It left a short fall of three floors and obviously you weren‟t going to
get planning consent to change the scheme that fundamentally, and you wouldn‟t
want to so I think Liverpool Vision then stepped in and said to keep the scheme
moving forward we‟ll put this figure in I think it was in the region of a million pounds
gap funding. That was the only point a gap as such appeared, everything else was
what was agreed at the outset.
Page 73 of 91
The other area the city found funding for was to extend the public realm, we‟ve
always drawn the red line boundary around our clients ownership but we‟ve always
designed the public realm paving to run right to the edge because we were quite
keen that the Mann Island public realm was a continuation. So as soon as you
stepped off of that super crossing you were in that Mann Island public realm and the
City in the end I think found some funding to do that to implement our scheme to
front of footpath. – so that was another gap of sorts.
What do you think are the implications for this scheme for BM and the north of
England in terms of quality architecture?
I think this scheme has been the most debated. I think it‟s got big implications for us
as a practice. It‟s not like any other scheme we‟ve done before – and I think my
fellow directors agree it‟s a totally different level of quality, we all see it as being a
very different level quality of scheme. So it‟s got big implications for us really in terms
of setting big implications for Broadway Malyan as a whole. It suggests a step
change for the practice as a whole potentially and I think also for the North(west).
Someone said to me the most two debated schemes in the Northwest at the
moment, or the highest profile architectural schemes in the Northwest are Number
one Deansgate, the tower just because of the sheer height, and then Mann Island
and then there aren‟t actually that many. When you actually think of the Northwest
there aren‟t many high quality pieces of architecture or public realm.
You get so close to the thing (Mann Island) and so passionate about delivering high
quality, to an almost obsessive degree. If I‟m being honest you get so close that you
don‟t actually step back and think what else I there to compare it to?
The Creative Times article jounrnalist said that hopefully journalists from London will
come up and look at it (Mann Island) because they tend to be a bit Londoncentric
and don‟t believe good architecture exists outside of London; when actually they
need to come up and see it as a demonstration that proper high quality architecture,
proper world class architecture can be delivered in the north (of England) – so I do
think it‟s important I don‟t know whether it‟ll act as a catalyst for raising the game in
general or not, really I don‟t know.
Page 74 of 91
In response to my commenting on the reconnection with the heritage of the City in a

new age, I received a comment from a previous discussion stating that “good
architecture should cause debate” – and it‟s certainly done that.
People‟s views will change a lot. At the moment it‟s not a bit of the City and so at the
moment it just seems an intrusion so all people can see at the moment is that they‟ve
lost a view, one particular view that you know a lot of people held very dear and A
they‟ve got nothing back from it and B they can‟t really see what new views have
opened up yet because they can‟t access the site, plus the fact that it‟s all barriered
off means that it‟s a kind of us and them in terms of the scheme. I think when it‟s
opened up and the public can move through it, see the different views and different
places I think A they‟ll appreciate what it offers the City but I think B also, over time, it
will allow them to take ownership of it. At the moment psychologically the city can‟t
take ownership over it so it just seems an imposition, once they can take ownership
over it they‟re more likely to like it. It‟s like when the Liver Building was built, if you
look at all the press coverage over it at the time it was absolutely hated and it is a bit
of a monstrosity is the honest answer, because it was seen as a complete
superimposition on the City by a big wealthy businessman or company. But now its
seen as a public building almost – which it‟s not but over time the city have come to
adopt it as its own.
Exchange of thanks – interview drawn to a close
Page 75 of 91
Interviewee:
Christian Nielsen
Senior Planner, Urban Designer
Building Design Partnership
Date Held:
11/01/11

How have partnership models contributed to developing sustainable urban

environments in the light of the climate change agenda?
(a) Could you comment on profit and value vs. the wider public good?
The private sector is a beast, it‟s an entity that we talk about, various companies
have different foci and different attitudes. When you look at Grosvenor for example,
they take a very long term perspective. If you look at for example in London in
Mayfair where it‟s all sprung from, they (Grosvenor) maintain that ground rent and
they‟re in it for the long term all that investment and quality and placemaking –
they‟re still enjoying that now; they‟ve taken that same view here. I think the problem
though is that quite often that‟s not the norm. When you look at house builders for
example, they take such a short view of things, you know houses are units to be sold
off as a commodity rather than a place and whilst I think things were improving, I say
were because to be honest with you, I‟ve not had much experience with house
builders for over two years probably now; I think there‟s still a long way to go. When
you look at Liverpool for example where we‟ve got Housing Market Renewal, where
we‟re going through all that heartache, all that energy is being spent in knocking
down communities moving people around assembling sites and then putting
something else there. Is what‟s being put there sustainable infrastructure for the next
50-100 years? I‟m not convinced it is.
Page 76 of 91
Are some schemes more easily negotiated than others when considering
vested interests; delivering a sustainability conscious scheme; and designing
for the public good?
Yes I think so. I think where the developer has a vested interest in terms of a long
term interest in a stake in that, if it‟s an office scheme for example they know that
they are going to continue, if they retain the scheme, they will need to get people in
to service and maintain that quality. It‟s different with house building because you
buy something – you sell it off. They want to get rid of as much of it as possible they
don‟t necessarily retain the management company, even if it goes to a management
company that isn‟t part of their own.
Due to the economic climate would you say that the private sector has been
essential to building and development over the past couple of years?
When we talk about the private and the public sector I think there‟s a very – We‟re in
the North of England and I think we have a very different set of circumstances to the
South. I think the North still is reliant on the public sector, and that‟s in general across
the whole economy. I think in terms of development in both the North and the South,
the public sector is instrumental, it is providing for the public good, the private sector
is there to make money essentially. The public sector is to ensure in terms of
development that there is a public benefit to it (the development). So the private
sector, of course it has been instrumental in terms of paying for and delivering
development, but then it has been underwritten by substantial funding from, if you
take Liverpool for example we had the Objective One funding. So especially now in
these harsher times I don‟t think the private sector is strong enough to take on that
responsibility. It all goes down to job security. If you‟re looking at the housing market
for example people aren‟t going to be investing in buying a new house if they don‟t
know that their job is going to be there. Now if you live in the North typically your job
is either in the public sector or a private sector company that relies on the public
sector. It‟s like BDP we are a private company, we were in the top 100 companies
expanding abroad in the Times a couple of months ago, it‟s a really strong accolade
for the company. But, a lot of our bread and butter, and certainly what we‟ve been
relying on over the past couple of years is public sector building. The BSF (Building
Schools for the future) programme was very important to us and the cutbacks in that
have had ramifications for us.
Page 77 of 91
When the credit crunch took hold and then the recession from 2007 onwards,
practically on a weekly basis you were getting emails from people who worked for
different house builders, saying „I‟m moving on now‟ and there must have been an
absolutely massive reduction in the amount of staff. A lot of talent was lost from
those companies now you have the same happening in the public sector and I mean
a lot of those people went to the public sector, I can‟t see where the private sector is
going to take on the baton. Retailers have been affected quite strongly and see what
the Christmas trading has been like. Thinking about some of the towns that we work
in there is still a retail market, leisure actually has held of quite weel, but residential
office is just not there at all. In industry to some extent there are some successes, for
example the International Gateway in Liverpool. Things are pretty buoyant down
there because of some of the manufacturing bases there – so that‟s
interesting/private sector. If you look at Jaguar Landrover they‟ve created 800 jobs
this year and this is what we found in the SRF (Strategic regeneration framework) the
economic model, we estimated that circa 2000 jobs will be created in the local supply
chain also. So that‟s going to have massive benefits.
A good example that‟s not in a built form or design context, going back to the
International Gateway so what we‟ve got there is an area of approximately 1600
hectres it Garston, Speke and Knutscroft it‟s a district of the city and what we‟re
doing there is we are doing the design development principles for that area but also
the land use allocation. Although it was a formal document it would inform the land
use development DPD. So we‟ve undertaken an evidence base and we have a very
good idea of what type of uses we‟d like to see in the area so for example you‟ve
already got 2 retail parks there – you have lots of pressure for more out of town retail
(park) but obviously planning policy and the City in terms of what they‟ve been
delivering in the City centre don‟t want to see a lot more of that type of development
out there. Also you‟ve got some really fundamental assets such as the air port, ports,
railways, roads, infrastructure and land which is fundamental to that and underpins –
the people working in that particular area; this may only be five or ten but then that
underpins a much wider supply chain. So we gather this evidence and have an idea
of what we think is right for the City. We‟ve obviously consulted with the land owners
and they‟re like “well we‟ve paid „x‟ amount for it and they need a return (Peel and
JaguarLandrover amongst others). The key I think for some/most of them is that they
have to deliver profit. So if some of the developers as they did brought land at the
height of the market it‟s very difficult to sustain new development that‟s accords with
our aspirations and creates the value. Also they might earn land which they believe is
Page 78 of 91
surplus to requirements but we might say „we think you‟re taking a short term view‟.
So we had a number of instances like that where we had an aspiration, an intention
and the land owners had a different view and when they made representations on
the document we had to be very careful as it is basically biased what they are saying.
So we have to understand what they‟ re saying and say „yes we agree with you in
certain respects‟ but looking at this in the round, looking at this for the good of the
city, for the good of the area, this is what it should be. So in this instance the private
sector had a very different view to us for the benefit of share holders.
How do you think the control of design quality is dealt with through PPP
process?
In theory I‟m biased being an urban designer but I think design quality is
fundamental, in terms of the benefits for the private and the public sector. If you have
a retail development that is mapped out according to retail circuits and interlinked
into the city like Liverpool One that‟s good for the commercial elements of the
scheme. But also if those routes and spaces are attractive and lively and vibrant and
safe, then there‟s the public benefit there. So it‟s a win win situation and it‟s certainly
fundamental as opposed to it being a purely private scheme where those more
philanthropic elements of high quality public realm, add on things that make it more
attractive as a place may be cut back in terms of value engineering. If it was a purely
public scheme, you may even have the same thing because there isn‟t the money for
the quality, or to create the value. So I would say in public private circumstance
design is fundamental.
How do you find the process of conflict and resolution within the PPP
structure?
I‟ve been quite lucky in a sense in not having to work for hard -nosed private sector
clients. There‟s been a sense of respect for the kind of aspirations and principles that
we would put into a scheme, I think that is excepted. But none the less, developers -
they have a budget, they have a bill programme and they don‟t like elements which
don‟t give them certainty for example. Uncertainty means you can‟t put a price to it
Page 79 of 91
and if you cant put a price to it then it can become more difficult to monitor how the
developer is to reach their financial goals.
What we do is very strategic. I am not an architect I am not there at the cold face
when a building is going to be built and we‟re talking about one material over
another. What I‟m doing is general forms and an idea of a place, so I suppose in a
sense that‟s probably why I haven‟t had that kind of conflict, because the principles of
place-making – we take an evidence based approached to things, we always do. So
we‟d take an area analysis, we look at the land uses, the movement, pen space, the
buildings, the planning policy and the regeneration context and often we take on
other professions from other companies to fill in gaps that we can‟t do such as
economic modeling. So I think with that evidence base it makes it a lot more difficult
to stray.
What effect do you think quality urban realm, quality building and quality
placemaking has on the characteristics of a city in a physical sense but also a
spiritual sense – the feel of place.
In a physical sense good quality, well structure development helps people get from a
to b, allows people to understand a place, helps people carry out their work through
the functional requirements of design – so those are the broad brush physical things.
Emotionally it‟s how you look at how areas change the way people act. For example
Ropewalks on a Saturday night the concentration of bars, the music, the lighting, the
takeaways, all these uses conspire to create a place where people are rowdy its
created – almost like the chicken and egg, one creates then the other is created.
Similarly when you‟re given a very high quality sense of place – not to bang on about
Liverpool One but I believe people in the City are grateful for it and proud of it and it
makes them act in a – gives more of a confidence and awareness of quality which
they probably wouldn‟t have had before. Also its interesting how it effects outside
perceptions of a place. Because Liverpool I‟ve always seen in the years that I‟ve
know the City that I‟ve loved it as a City but like anywhere it has its problems it has
its grotty bits. But, somewhere like Liverpool One that scale, the location of it was so
instrumental in not only creating something in itself but linking everything else back
Page 80 of 91
together, so Church Street is still strong as a retail area, the waterfront now is more
vibrant that its ever been so that‟s fantastic. How it effects people in their day to day
lives, just seeing people promenading and sitting and enjoying the space rather than
rushing through a windswept park getting from a to b, that‟s the difference it makes.
Page 81 of 91
Interviewee:
Peter North
Senior Lecturer: Specialises in People Space and Place
Date Held:
13/01/11

How do you view the ability of public private partnerships to better address
climate sensitive urban development?
I suppose I would argue that partnerships that are generally inclusive of a wider
range of players from the public sector; private sector; and community sector and
take time to get the right sort of policy and to agree it – can be far more democratic
and far more inclusive and will come up with better policies than ideas that are
generated in say central London and then imposed from there, or ideas that come
from one particular perspective like „the private sector is efficient the public sector is
inefficient so the private sector should do it‟. Or from green groups that have no
conception of economics or governance processes, or architecture or architects that
understand building but probably don‟t understand economics and probably don‟t
understand communities. So if you take those ideas from people like Atkinson that
partnerships should marry up efficiency by getting the best policy by involving all the
right people in deciding it with the democratic side of partnerships where if people
have got a stake in the decision making process they‟re much more likely to support
it than otherwise. If you look at plans for the Mersey Gateway at the moment or the
Mersey Barrage you can see huge problems down the line there because they‟re
obviously not including people in it and you‟re already seeing the opposition getting
going.
Page 82 of 91
Dealing with a planning system in a state of flux, how do you believe

partnership model could potentially fit in with the capacity to govern in a
democratic process?
I think it‟s a coalition that in its rhetoric at least is arguing that local people are more
likely to have more of an understanding of what‟s going on locally more likely to have
an understanding of what works for their area, more likely to make something that
comes up than people in central London. It‟s an old philosophical idea; do you
believe that the man in Whitehall knows best? And the best thing is top down
planning, and targets and implementation? So partnerships are there to be in the
regions and the cities and roll out central Government partnerships because central
Government is progressive, or central Government wants to reorganize the state
around the private sector and central Government knows best. Now do you take the
the 1950s, 1960s, Thatcher and Blair-Brown approach? Or do you believe in bottom
up? In organic? In scruffiness locally? In a lack of connection locally? But what the
hell because local people will work it out on their own and that way you‟ll get to
slightly better policies?
The current government is a liberal government, classically having views in letting

people decide for themselves, a stronger role in the public sector and a smaller role
for the private sector. Things like the Big Society and localism as a view – somebody
that is on the decentralist ring of politics rather than the centralist role of politics. If
you take that view that there‟s left and right in politics but there‟s also centralist and
decentralist, for somebody that‟s on the decentralist wing of policy I think there‟s
possibly some really interesting stuff to come out of that – (refers to a Tory
philosophy of government. - article reference)…
I agree with that [the article] I think that makes more interesting places. Arguments
against that would be for example Docklands where they freed up the planning
system for the private sector to build Canary Wharf; then businesses said “well how
do we get here?” – there‟s no railway! You need planning to make sure the railway
system gets there.
Arguing for the organic from the view of Sandercock where one would argue that
planning is permissive and it‟s to understand for diversity and chaos, leave certain
places alone and they can do interesting things where you don‟t bother them too
Page 83 of 91
much rather than creating a Singapore sort of planned world where everywhere you
look is the same – which seems really dull.
The other side is to be aware that your [the planner] ability to place make is very
limited. A good example that I always use, when I was working in Birmingham in the
1980‟s. Birmingham has been reorganised and they built the international convention
centre and the idea was that broad street would turn into a businessman‟s place of
clubs and restaurants for conference trade. That‟s just not what happened it‟s turned
into a student area because that‟s what happens, planners don‟t decide, the market
decides. People‟s individual consumption choices - so you can either plan a place
and people move to it, or they don‟t, and they can make it work or they can not make
it work.
In light of the CSR do you think the projected buoyancy of the private sector
will soften the blow of public sector cuts?
Honestly I believe there are too many variables to judge.
From the talk you gave before Christmas on a Low Carbon Economy across
Merseyside could you further explain the concept of innovation in partnerships
and the potential for partnerships to act as a catalyst in community and urban
development?
If you have a partnership that is democratic and inclusive and it‟s working with
diversity and it‟s happy with diversity, it‟s not there to implement a top down policy it‟s
genuinely there to implement from the bottom up and it‟s taking the Patsy Healey
collaborative approach – which everybody says is naïve, but I don‟t think is naïve.
I think you can absolutely set up a forum for discussion where you say the rules are
that everyone listens respectfully, I‟ve seen it done loads of times, it is possible to do
that. People take that perspective that that it is the best way to get best policy rather
than strategic behaviour, which is what most people think is the best way to move
forward. I think certainly that that could be a way of developing very interesting things
and getting the best ideas through.
Obviously the argument against that is that they‟re too slow, and that people will
always act strategically, so you have to get the balance right between every one
having a voice and everyone listening to each other. If you recognise that there is a
Page 84 of 91
difference between what plans people make and how they are to be used in the real
world they can be interesting. You can certainly use partnership to create spaces for
people to do interesting things, if you recognise that. But I think a lot of the time
people are very disrespectful of the knowledge that people have, they think people
don‟t know and they‟re not willing to listen. [that goes for everybody] communities will
often think their community is great and people down the road are full of rubbish; or
that there will be one leader of a community that thinks they‟re the only one that
knows anything about anything and they treat their community as a resource that
they roll out now and then when they want to get re-elected; or they‟re self appointed.
It can be a councilor that thinks because they got elected on 20% of the vote they
have the right to say it all; it can be a planner who thinks because they have a
planning degree they know it all and the community knows nothing; it can be the
private sector that‟s got bigoted views about communities and the public sector; it
could be the public sector who has bigoted views about the private sector. I like this
idea of having an openness, I like this idea of what Patsy Healey talks about, coming
from Habermas, of the requirement to speak clearly and respectfully – I think that
makes a better world.
Considering the North South divide – do partnerships have a role to play in

closing that divide?
Yes - in as much as all economic development policy has to look at that, and in as
much as a geographer. There‟s very poor in the South and there‟s very rich in the
North there‟s Chester and Cheshire plane in the North and there‟s Bristol and
Hartcliff in the South. So yes social inclusion is very important. Because I‟ve got this
sort of decentralist view, I don‟t actually mind that there may be some areas that are
rich and some areas that are poorer. As long as the poor are looked after, I don‟t
necessarily want to homogenize, I don‟t necessarily want to make everyone the
same. If Liverpool is not the same as Bristol I don‟t care I want Liverpool to be ok on
Liverpool‟s terms and vice versa. I don‟t really care what the GDA is between them is
to be honest – there‟s more to life than that, happiness and community level
indicators seem far more democratic and inspiring – and fun.
What is the potential for partnerships to effect cultural practices and cultural
norms in the interest of sustainability?
Page 85 of 91
I think partnerships can design good policy and that policy when it connects with real
world practices can be helpful or not. I think the argument that if you set up
infrastructure to allow people to live sustainably (in reference to crossrail) that‟s far
more effective than yelling and whining at them and using moral arguments, if the
bus is there and it‟s cheap and it‟s reliable and driving the car is hard then people
will get on buses, otherwise they won‟t. It‟s ridiculous to expect people not to fly when
it‟s £20 and going on the train is £70. So partnerships can be used to design good
policy, but it‟s the policy when it interacts with the real world the economy, and free
people making their own choices, that‟s when it gets interesting. There are limits to
the extent that governments can effect that.
Page 86 of 91
Interviewee:
Andrew Phipps
Principal Planner
Greater London Authority Dept. of Transport Planning
Date Held:
16/02/11

Firstly from what I’ve read, the funding package does it still remain a third
Government; a third Mayoral; and a third private business contribution?
Roughly. The Mayors contribution is the greatest, the Government‟s contribution is

less and the private contribution is less again, it is split into 3 but not equal thirds.
With the coalition and changing parameters of the CIL (Community

Infrastructure Levy) (CIL 300m and Sec. 106 300m contribution) will this
change with the localism bill?
A tricky question – see attached document (a reflection of the corporations stand

through consultation procedure)
When we get development coming up we have the Mayor looking to get a sec. 106
contribution, in addition to the 106 monies that we would be asking for in order to
carry out local improvements. When the mayor put forward his initial proposals we
were concerned that not all areas that would benefit from crossrail were being
expected to contribute; but we made representations to the Mayor as to what we
thought would be reasonable ways of doing it - both the type of land uses that ought
to be in the frame and the areas that should be within the frame.
Page 87 of 91
New structure for CIL monies fund the Crossrail project itself or would it fund
future services where the CIL is spent on supporting infrastructure as opposed
to the primary development?
My understanding is that as far as im aware funding is for the infrastructure and not
running costs.
Is there potential for private sector bodies (in light of the downturn) along the
crossrail route to become a driving force behind the project?
Driven by central Government and the Mayor – a consequence of the coalitions on

cutbacks of public expenditure – when they made the announcement on what money
would be available we were fairly surprised that a lot of transport projects had
actually escaped, Crossrail was always a bit touch and go. Part of the deal with the
Mayor effectively was that we were going to have to make sure that in order for it to
be kept that it was delivered for the cheapest possible price.
Government funding and Mayoral funding is now agreed, therefore the funding
package is now in place. However before the Government were willing to finally give
the project the go ahead they required Crossrail to cut the cost of the project, so
they‟ve done a review of the scope of the project and the methods of construction
and in doing so that shaved a billion off of the original costs. As I understand it that
was a requirement from the government that if they were going to get the money they
had to demonstrate that they were going to be delivering a cost effective scheme, so
Crossrail have spent a lot of time over the last year or so reviewing the original work
and design of the project to see where changes could be made. So for example in
Whitechapel the design of the station was changed partly to meet some requests
from Tower Hamlets council but also in doing that they‟ve managed to reduce the
cost of building it as well. We had similar issues within the City where Liverpool street
station - we had a particular design of station that had been approved when the bill
went through parliament, we thought that‟s what we were going to see then Crossrail
did their engineering review and came up with a cheaper option which was not
satisfactory from our point of view so we made a lot of noise about that and managed
to persuade them to go back to do what we thought they were going to do in the first
place. So there‟s been quite a lot of „tooing‟ and „froing‟, even now certain element s
of the final design of the scheme are not there. They‟re still looking at things and until
they‟ve got all the contractors on board there‟s still potential for changes. So for
Page 88 of 91
example they‟ve only recently appointed the main tunnel contracts for Crossrail and
in doing that they‟ve revised the tunneling strategies so now they‟re going to do the
tunneling in different ways to that originally thought which allows them to reduce the
cost of doing the work.
Do you think the delivery of the Crossrail scheme could provide impetus for
economic regeneration?
That is part of the package that Crossrail offers. Obviously Crossrail is there to meet
part of the current shortfall of capacity of the transport network. Take the City, it‟s a
regular complaint that the transport system is overloaded and can‟t cope. So
Crossrail, in part, will help relieve current problems - but also it will provide impetus to
generate activity both in existing centres like the City but presumably also in areas
like – that perhaps haven‟t got that much growth at the moment. For example if you
think about the jubilee line when that was built and the studies after that to see what
had happened to property values around stations and along the line. The fact that
people at Canary Wharf are so keen to have Crossrail - they see this as a vital piece
of infrastructure to release more development potential.
Will the Crossrail project encourage more sustainable living patterns in the
city?
It will help. If you think about how London works at the moment: everyone who works
in the City apart from the odd one who arrives by chauffer driven car, they either
already come by public transport or they walk, or they cycle so you‟re not going to
get any more of a modal shift for people commuting in from the outskirts into central
London because effectively all you‟re doing is your making it easier for more people
to do that - now you can argue whether or not bringing people in from the outer
suburbs to work in central London is a good thing or a bad thing in terms of
sustainability? The City corp. we have a particular remit a remit that ensures the City
remains the world‟s number 1 business and financial centre, now we‟re all very keen
on sustainability and green roofs but the primary objective with Crossrail is to make
sure the people who work here or want to do business here can get to and from – the
fact that they might be living out in Seven Oaks somewhere and it may be more
sustainable for the to live closer and to cycle is not an issue – we can‟t tackle that.
On one level if you provide a bulk of employment in a central area which people can
Page 89 of 91
get to from all points of the compass by public transport, then that is more
sustainable that some American cities where employment opportunities are
dispersed around the suburbs and everybody travels by car.
This has been looked at fairly recently by the Mayor. When the mayor was putting
together his most recent transport strategy one of the big complaints from the outer
boroughs was that Ken Livingstone was only interested in central and inner London,
Borris was elected on the back of the outer boroughs and when it came to look at the
transport strategy they thought about creating more development opportunities out in
the suburbs; Croydon and Stratford for example. When it came to look at it, if you
wanted a sustainable transport system to serve that, it was virtually impossible to
provide the infrastructure. The amount of money that you‟d have to invest to provide
that service is blown out the water, so the Mayor‟s current transport strategy is
exactly the same as the previous one with a bit of tinkering!
We always major on the fact that having a highly concentrated business district is
what is attractive, this is why international companies want to come and invest in
London because they know they can be next door to a company in the same
industry.
Could you describing the structure of Crossrail board?
There is a high level forum meeting which takes place a couple of times a year, when
senior people from all the local authorities along the line of the route are invited to a
meeting to talk about Crossrail. Those meetings are hosted alternately by the Mayor
and the next meeting will be held by the Minister of State/Dept. of transport so those
two bodies are joint sponsors of the project – so it‟s a public project apart from the
fact that they have agreements from certain outside bodies to make financial
contributions. For example the Corp. (us) are putting money in as a public body,
BAA, the Wharf Group, Barclay homes are meant to be building a station at
Woolwich, it‟s a public enterprise, unlike the tube where a PPP and private
companies like tubelines, where effectively they were given the tube to run and
maintain for a 30 year period. Ultimately all of these big infrastructure projects are
paid for by the public, even if it‟s a public private partnership, basically all your doing
is you‟re deferring the day when you have to pay for it. It‟s like anything if you have
something on tick you end up paying more for it in the long run than you would if
Page 90 of 91
you‟d paid outright for it in the first place. Obviously the underground PPP has been
a complete and utter disaster.
Page 91 of 91

PPP A Funding Framework For The Future Caleb Butler

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

PPP A Funding Framework For The Future Caleb Butler

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Public Private Partnerships:

A funding framework for the future?

University of Liverpool School of Environmental Sciences

Public Private Partnerships:

University of Liverpool School of Environmental Sciences

200 555 706

The Gordon Stephenson Building

An added level of depth is given to my work as a result of Senior Lecturer Peter

planning/architecture dominated contributing panel; delivering a social and political

This dissertation is focused on public-private partnerships and their ability to support

By assessing the technical components of public-private partnerships, the study

1.1 Background : Reason for study 9

Section 3: Political Origins

Section 4: The Economic Downturn and Public-Private Stimulus

Section 4.1 The PPP method and economic instability 28

Section 5 Land Use Planning, Urban Betterment & Environmental Sustainability

Section 5.1 Case Studies

Section 5.1.1 Introduction to studies 39

Section 5.2.1 Case Study 1: Mann Island 40

Section 5.3.1 Case Study 2: Crossrail 50

Section 6: Conclusion: the public-private model and the way forward

List of Figures, Maps and Illustrations

Fig 1.1 One New Change retail development, London 10

BOO Build Own Operate

1.2 Background : Reason for study

Partnership, n. The fact or condition of being a partner; association or participation;

OED Oxford University Press (2010)

1.1.1 Partnerships in relation to planning practice

The planning profession is in a constant state of flux. Changing circumstances are

1.1.2 Environmental sustainability

(environmental) planning and more general development discourse, no specific set of

1.1.3 Researching Public Private Partnerships

Focusing on changing economic circumstances and the financial implications of the

A political evolution of the public-private model is provided, explaining how

Public-private finance is then considered in an economic context. Tracking

1.1.4 Core points of the research

1.1.5 Controlling question

1.1.6 Research Aim

To investigate the frameworks for P3 administration and management; considering

1.1.7 Key research objectives

The following research objectives are central to the study:

o What are the relationships between partners in financing

o How have public-private financing methods been effected by

o What are the spatial effects of major development projects in urban

1.1.8 Research Methods

 A review of existing literature with core texts:

o Akintoye et. al (2003) Public-Private Private Partnerships: Managing

providing a historical and technical analysis of the building and

analyses the relationships between the distribution of people and

 The continual analysis of newspapers has provided a constant thread of

 The Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD)

 Semi-structured interviews have also been held with professionals related to

(Full transcripts of interviews can be found in Appendix C)

Introduces the idea of the partnership method and discusses the

Provides insight into the current climate in which development in our

Section 3: Political Origins

Outlining a political history of the partnership model, discussing

Section 4: The Economic Downturn and Public-Private Stimulus

Discussing the operation of partnership strategies during the

Section 5: Land Use Planning, Urban Betterment & Environmental

5.1: Case Studies

Looks at the potential to remodel the public realm; identifying the

A revision of original aims and objectives