El derecho de audiencia, la prueba y el auxilio profesional

This section will summarise the key findings of the literature review. The definition of the term regeneration appears to be wide and encompasses social, environmental and economic and not just physical transformation. The literature review has indicated that effective regeneration, can involve the adoption a multi-disciplined approach to deliver long-term change in an area. This is rather than progression of a single policy initiative of physical regeneration.

An objective of this research is to understand how engaging in urban heritage regeneration involving private sector development companies can contribute to the concept of successful regeneration. The literature review has established that the research is in accordance with the definition of urban regeneration provided by Tallon (2013) and Jones and Evans (2008). This is due to the fact that the research is focused upon on urban heritage projects in towns and cities rather than non-urban and rural locations.

There does not appear to be a conclusive definition of what comprises successful regeneration where definitions may vary according to each stakeholder perspective. A definition of successful regeneration can include the project acting as a catalyst for further regeneration and the creation of a mix of uses that contributes to social community cohesion and urban renewal. Successful regeneration looks to be focused in areas where the public and private sector often work in partnership to deliver long term economic, social and environmental improvements. It appears that engaging in

successful regeneration project may involve undertaking a design led approach that delivers value to project stakeholders.

It appears that engaging in urban heritage projects can contribute to the concept of successful regeneration. The literature review has revealed that urban heritage regeneration may provide economic benefits and contribute to social cohesion within a local community. Heritage regeneration projects may act as a focal point for regeneration, acting as the catalyst for further regeneration activity and contribute to the delivery of a mix of uses, including tourism, to an area.

The use of heritage assets in the context of the built environment has evolved, moving away from purely preservation and conservationist perspective, to be used as an active agent for change. Evidence has been provided that demonstrates that heritage assets have been used in regeneration policy as a vehicle for social, environmental and economic regeneration. They also appear to have been able to satisfy demand for uses such as residential, commercial and leisure accommodation. Conversely, the limitations of the use of heritage assets in regeneration projects, has been highlighted. Evidence has been provided where projects have not been progressed due to lack of private sector development company involvement as a result of the local economic context.

The type of heritage asset appears to be important in successful heritage regeneration projects where industrial mills look to provide flexibility to deliver adaptive re-use. In contrast, buildings that have been built for a specific purpose or are associated with industries and associated with levels of contamination, cellularity and lack of useable space have been described to be more difficult to adaptive re-use. The refurbishment and adaptation costs of regenerating heritage assets can impose cost burdens on a property owner or developer that may present an unacceptable level of risk (English Heritage, 2013).

The involvement of the public sector in these projects looks to be important in that they have been identified as sources of project funding and technical knowledge. However, evidence suggests that they are affected by a lack of resources and skills. Creating effective partnerships has been highlighted as a key factor to ensure commercial viability, to attract private sector investment and to provide

complimentary skills. There appears to be a need to engage in effective consultation with the local community and key stakeholders. A poorly executed consultation process may cause significant delays and even result in the abandonment of regeneration projects.

Assessing the value of urban heritage regeneration appears to be difficult. The emphasis for private sector participants is on more contemporary assessments of value namely financial value. Development companies will look to maximise the commercial worth of their investment. The distinction between in use or direct value as opposed to non-use, indirect value looks to be significant when determining the value of heritage regeneration projects. Whilst claims of the direct value of heritage regeneration projects have been discovered, albeit in a limited form, the valuation of indirect benefits, post project completion, has yet to be fully established.

There is evidence of private sector participation in the delivery of these projects attracted by the opportunity to generate financial returns and to work with buildings of a high quality. A primary reason for participation appears to be to build relationships, and work in partnership with public sector organisations. The evidence suggests that a perception exists of high construction, hidden and on-going maintenance and repair costs of heritage regeneration projects. This is claimed to be a significant determinant when considering participation by private sector development companies. There appears to be inconclusive evidence provided that claims the costs of redevelopment in heritage regeneration could be less than the comparative cost of new build projects.

It is evident that there are a variety of organisations that engage in development activity whose motivations differ according to their development aim and objectives. It has been claimed that it is difficult to provide precise definitions in types of development organisation. However it is apparent that the developer investors or speculative housebuilders could be described as engaging in top down, formulaic development. These development organisations prioritise the use of past data trends, adopting a risk averse approach by investing in established locations. This is in order to aim to deliver development projects that provide returns in accordance with their long term investment objectives.

Local or independent development organisations may utilise their knowledge of the local area to operate in emerging locations away from the core market in order to identify development opportunities. This bottom up, entrepreneurial approach to development can involve the adoption of a design led approach or working in partnership with local authorities in order to mitigate risk and increase project viability.

It appears that these organisations may be willing to engage in unconventional property development projects that may provide opportunities to satisfy demand and deliver and acceptable level of financial return. These projects may be suitable for those organisations with an increased risk tolerance who adopt a long term view of development. In addition urban heritage regeneration project look to be suitable for those organisations willing engage and work in partnership local authorities and operate in marginal and peripheral development locations.

Indications of the apparent changing nature of urban heritage regeneration during the period from 2007 to the current day have been identified. The key themes that appear to have affected heritage led regeneration practice during this period can be described as amendments to central government and regeneration and planning policy. It appears that there is increasing awareness of the need to engage in sustainable development and for local authority organisations to codify approaches to the preservation and maintenance of heritage. An increasing awareness of the issues of delivering urban heritage regeneration in areas of low value and low demand has been demonstrated. The inability to bridge the conservation deficit in these areas is affecting the ability of private sector development organisations to participate in these projects.

The changing nature of urban heritage regeneration due to the involvement of private sector organisations in urban heritage regeneration has had considerable impact. This has potentially caused the creation of two paradigms affecting urban heritage regeneration. The conservationist paradigm expresses concern relating to the apparent prioritisation of the concept of market or direct value, at the expense of more holistic concepts of value. In contrast, constructive conservationists believe that heritage assets should be used as an active agent for change. They support the use of heritage

in regeneration projects and promote the need for further study into the economic value of these projects.

The literature has been subject to critical analysis. It appears that publications and reports in the field have been commissioned by those organisations with potentially a vested interest in heritage regeneration (Amion, 2010; English Heritage, 2005; English Heritage 2008 English Heritage 2013; Liverpool City Council, 2015 and Pennine Lancashire). This prolonged involvement in the subject area may result in a lack of critical detachment and production of overly optimistic statements or optimism bias (Labadi, 2008) regarding the benefits of heritage regeneration.

A lack of critical detachment may apply to those authors who write in the field such as Pugalis (2012) and Pugalis (2013) who provides extensive commentary on contemporary regeneration governance. However Pugalis’ argument could be described as subjective, containing an implied bias. This may be due to the authors’ previous role as practitioner in the field. In addition, the premise of literature in the subject area can be focused on the re-use projects not exclusively in urban regeneration areas (Amion, 2010; Bullen and Love, 2011a; Bullen and Love, 2011b; Colliers, 2011b).

3.0 RESEARCH RATIONALE