Search results

This paper aims to examine the approach of UK institutional funds to considering flood risk to property investments in the light of their fiduciary duty, the widespread floods in 2007 and 2010 and the predicted increase in future incidence due to climate change. It explores the due diligence process and the challenges to investment decision-making and to property valuation. The case is made for further research to establish the extent of UK investment property potentially at risk from flooding, the degree of risk exposure and the way the risk is translated into valuations.

A comprehensive literature review informed the design of interviews with senior managers in major investment funds, their professional advisers and other stakeholder representatives, including environmental consultants, valuers, solicitors, lenders and the insurance industry. Case studies illustrate how the due diligence process is used to identify risks, inform purchase decisions and devise mitigation and management actions.

Property represents about 4 per cent of investments managed in the UK, but there is no clear picture of where and how much could be at risk of flooding. There is a common false assumption among investors that risk levels are unlikely to change and a reluctance to expose an otherwise hidden problem.

Property is an important diversification asset in investment portfolios, underpinning individual pension, insurance and savings plans. Prior research indicated flood risk to commercial investment property was under-researched; a need for awareness raising; and for guidance relevant to investors and their professional advisers.

Property is a key resource for the delivery of public services and needs to be managed well. The previous Conservative government had a conviction that better value public services could be delivered by harnessing private sector expertise and, since the late 1980s, embarked on an unprecedented level of competitive tendering. This procurement method had extended to the appointment of property consultants, but the system encountered difficulties which research by the College of Estate Management (CEM) sought to explain. The research, undertaken in 1995 and 1996, involved interviews and major questionnaire surveys covering managers and property professionals in the public and private sectors, leading to recommendations about changes to practice and policy. This paper traces developments in local government, by comparison with central government, from before the advent of compulsory competitive tendering (CCT) for property services in April 1996 through to the latest changes proposed by the new Labour government after May 1997. It concludes that competition is an important management tool, but recommends greater flexibility in the way procurement is implemented.

This paper seeks to summarise the main research findings from a detailed, qualitative set of structured interviews and case studies of Real Estate Partnership (REP) schemes in the UK, which involve the construction of built facilities. The research, which was funded by the Foundation for the Built Environment, examines the evolution of REPs in the UK and in Europe. The paper also aims to analyse best practice, critical factors for success, and lessons for the future.

The research in this paper is based around ten semi‐structured interviews conducted with senior representatives from corporate occupiers, property consultants, legal practices and REP service providers.

The research in the paper demonstrates that REPs are particularly suited to the UK, where lease lengths are relatively long, and the level of corporate real estate owner‐occupation is often higher than elsewhere. It also shows that further research is needed to examine the future shape and form of the UK REP market.

The paper is based on a limited number of in‐depth case study interviews. The paper shows that further research is needed to find better ways to examine REPs empirically.

The paper is important in highlighting a number of main issues in developing REPs: identifying with occupier's objectives; risk transfer and size of contract; and developing appropriate innovation and skills.

The paper examines the drivers, barriers and critical success factors (at strategic and operational levels) for REPs in the UK in detail and will be of value to property managers, facilities managers, investors, financiers, and others involved in the REP process.

This paper summarises the main research findings from a detailed, qualitative set of structured interviews and case studies of private finance initiative (PFI) schemes in the UK, which involve the construction of built facilities. The research, which was funded by the Foundation for the Built Environment, examines the emergence of PFI in the UK. Benefits and problems in the PFI process are investigated. Best practice, the key critical factors for success, and lessons for the future are also analysed.

The research is based around 11 semi‐structured interviews conducted with stakeholders in key PFI projects in the UK.

The research demonstrates that value for money and risk transfer are key success criteria. High procurement and transaction costs are a feature of PFI projects, and the large‐scale nature of PFI projects frequently acts as barrier to entry.

The research is based on a limited number of in‐depth case study interviews. The paper also shows that further research is needed to find better ways to measure these concepts empirically.

The paper is important in highlighting four main areas of practical improvement in the PFI process: value for money assessment; establishing end‐user needs; developing competitive markets and developing appropriate skills in the public sector.

The paper examines the drivers, barriers and critical success factors for PFI in the UK for the first time in detail and will be of value to property investors, financiers, and others involved in the PFI process.

Property ownership can tie up large amounts of capital and management energy that business could employ more productively elsewhere. Competitive pressures, accounting changes and increasingly sophisticated occupier requirements are building demand for new and innovative ways to satisfy corporate occupation needs. The investment climate is also changing. Falling interest rates and falling inflation can be expected to undermine returns from the traditional FRI lease. In future, investment returns will be more dependent on active and innovative management geared to the needs of occupiers on whom income depends. Occupier and investor interests, therefore, look set to coincide, but unlocking the potential for both parties will depend on developing new finance and investment vehicles that align their respective needs. In the UK, examples include PFI in the public sector and off‐balance sheet financing in the private sector. In the USA, “synthetic lease” structures have also become popular. Growing investment market experience in assessing risks and returns suggests scope for further innovative arrangements in the corporate sector. But how can such arrangements be structured? What are the risks, drivers and barriers?

Heritage tourism depends on a physical resource based primarily on listed buildings and scheduled monuments. Visiting or staying in a historic building provides a rich tourism experience, but historic environments date from eras when access for disabled people was not a consideration. Current UK Government policy now promotes social inclusion via an array of equal opportunities, widening participation and anti‐discrimination policies. Historic environments enjoy considerable legislative protection from adverse change, but now need to balance conservation with public access for all. This paper discusses the basis of research being undertaken by The College of Estate Management funded by the Mercers Company of London and the Harold Samuel Trust. It assesses how the 1995 Disability Discrimination Act has changed the legal obligations of owners/operators in managing access to listed buildings in tourism use. It also examines the key stakeholders and power structures in the management of historic buildings and distinguishes other important players in the management process.