Balancing viability and social value delivery in the London market

Often in development, viability and social value are framed as competing priorities, with concerns that prioritising wider outcomes may put pressure on margins and jeopardise project delivery. However, what emerged during a roundtable discussion between local authority representatives, consultants and private sector developers was a shared recognition of just how deeply viability and social value are connected.

The conversation, chaired by Laira Roberts, a Principal in Avison Young’s Development Advisory team, was part of Avison Young’s series of fringe events at UKREiiF. It provided a deep dive into the London market, exploring the themes that circulate the housing crisis, including how we can ensure that policy objectives stay on target and that public sentiment remains positive as new proposals are developed and schemes are brought to life.

Defining social value

Social value covers a vast number of initiatives to ensure that developments enhance the quality of life for communities living or working there. It’s a term that is used regularly and yet is often interpreted entirely differently by different people. The result is a landscape in which developers are second‑guessing what “good” looks like, often opting for safely generic measures.

This confusion is amplified by frameworks like Themes, Outcomes and Measures (TOMs), which several participants described as a box‑ticking exercise. These generate impressive looking numbers, but the problem here is that these are too generic to translate into anything meaningful for residents.

If social value expectations aren’t clear, the worry is that there is less incentive to pursue them. This is not helped by the current viability crunch, where build costs in London have skyrocketed. When priorities aren’t crystal clear, social value is the first thing to slip when economic hardships arise. This is because developers don’t know what to aim for, and councils struggle to hold developers to account. Projects are planned and delivered without deep consideration into the needs and wants of the specific community they’re intended to serve, limiting the difference they can make long-term.

Where does the responsibility for social value creation lie?

While some of the roundtable participants debated whether the responsibility sits solely with the public sector, there was agreement that certain councils are already taking steps to mitigate the impact of vague social value expectations on their communities.

But this is something that might not work for every area in exactly the same way, as many local authorities currently face short-term procurement cycles and strict planning frameworks, making it hard to layer in social value, impacting the longer term and having the ability to flex with changing requirements. A clear government-led vision would give local authorities something concrete to align with, while still giving them the flexibility to shape social value around local priorities.

Keeping the public and private sector on the same page

One of the clearest messages from the roundtable was that public–private alignment requires further attention, and this misalignment can lead to less-than-optimal solutions for the community. Developers openly acknowledged that they often struggle to understand a place’s priorities quickly enough, sometimes taking years to become well-accompanied with a location’s pressures and community needs. This can dilute the impact of any social value considerations they pursue during development.

That’s why the responsibility cannot sit with one side alone. Councils carry the responsibility to set the direction and to articulate priorities clearly so that developers are able to zoom in on what matters. But developers also have a responsibility to root their proposals in what is feasible and to engage early enough to shape solutions rather than retrofit them.

How to accelerate social value delivery when markets aren’t moving

Markets stagnate for a number of reasons, and this brings friction to the large-scale projects that take over a decade to complete. The example arose of shifting politics across boroughs, evidenced in recent elections. Looking at the situation positively, new councillors and cabinet members are elected because they reflect the concerns and priorities of their communities. In that sense, political change can sharpen the focus on what social value should deliver, but only if those priorities are clearly communicated and embedded in long-term place strategies.

To keep momentum consistent, the roundtable participants were clear that rigid frameworks simply don’t work for 10–year-plus projects, especially when the wider political and economic environment is volatile. These frameworks are what create the stop-start movement. Long‑term regeneration needs space to adapt, but what should stay stable are the strategic outcomes: the long‑term ambitions for people and place.

A way to enhance flexibility is to push for greater apprenticeship opportunities and skills initiatives, which would actively involve the community within developments. And to move away from a distinct borough-by-borough approach, instead inviting collaboration and enabling councils to pool resources to strengthen local supply chains and coordinate priorities. One participant raised the point that developers should also start collaborating in delivering social value obligations on a borough-wide approach.

Trust is also an accelerator. Partners need confidence that the other side will still deliver on what matters. Councils need to trust that developers won’t walk away from commitments when viability tightens. Developers need to trust that councils won’t change the rules halfway through.

Our view: It’s not a one-size-fits all answer to sustain social value through slow markets

The roundtable was a brilliant opportunity to bring voices from different sectors together and show that the intention to increase time and investment in social value is consistent, but that current market conditions and frameworks are making it difficult to strategise.

This shared view should accelerate trust between developers, local authorities, and communities. With that trust in place, everyone can work together more effectively to streamline planning processes, confident that they’re all working toward the same shared interest.

We believe that doing something targeted and strategic is far more valuable than spreading resource thinly across broad, generic commitments. And this ‘something’ will look different for each project. Our team works alongside developers to define the most effective interventions and align them with local priorities. Doing this now, adding a baseline of social value, means when markets are favourable, the impact will only increase.

Avison Young’s dedicated development advisory team, which includes Barney Hillsdon, Hannah Noble and Jasmine Ceccarelli-Drewry, provides multi-disciplinary consulting for landowners, developers, and the public sector, guiding projects from initial strategy to final delivery, and includes deep expertise on embedding social value principles from the outset.