On June 26th, TFT partnered with Coutts to host a lively debate on a timely question: Should social good be a legal obligation in real estate development?

With social value increasingly shaping the built environment, our discussion brought together leading voices from across the sector to explore whether legislation could (or should) be the next step.

The motion - “This house believes social value development targets should be part of legislation.” – passed with a narrow two-vote win.

But don’t jump to the lobby just yet. Such a narrow win reflects both the complexity of the issue and the strength of arguments on both sides.

Measuring what matters

We opened our debate with a fundamental challenge: how do we measure social value?

Lisa-Jane Risk of Places for London called for a holistic approach: “It's all too easy to say 'we invest x or y' in an activity without showing the full impact. We need to also measure negative social impact to get the full picture.” Places for London uses its industry leading Sustainable Development Framework to evaluate the true impact of its schemes on communities.

Supporters of legislation argued that a shared legal standard could drive consistency and accountability. Ion Fletcher of the British Property Federation suggested: “Aspirational targets would give our industry the impetus to innovate and be creative when it comes to making a difference.”

But others warned against rigid frameworks. “Even social value practitioners haven't bottomed out measurement methodologies after years of work. Legislating for the wrong measurements could be a big mistake”, said Lucille Watkins-Brazier of Lendlease.

As for what we should measure, Yolande Barnes of the Bartlett Institute asked: “What would a legal framework deliver against? We don't have a national happiness metric like Bhutan.”

Governance: to guide, or get out the way?

The second theme tackled the role of government. Should it lead, support, or step back?

Opponents of legislation argued that regulation often lags behind industry expertise and can be influenced by lobbying. Barnes advocated for a market-led approach, where long-term returns and stewardship naturally incentivise developers to invest in communities.

As far as proof for that direction of travel, Watkins-Brazier pointed to the rapid rise of social value roles across the industry, who would be instrumental in maintaining that momentum.

Yet proponents questioned whether voluntary action alone could deliver scale and immediacy. Fletcher cited the EPC B target for commercial buildings as an example of effective government-led direction: “The industry jumped to action, including the long tail of developers who need to catch up.”

Risk praised the London Plan’s approach, where policy-makers provide the ‘why’, while communities shape the ‘how’. She talked about Places for London’s work with teenage girls in a London borough, to understand why they used less public play areas compared to boys – it would be difficult to act on this challenge on a community-by-community basis within an overly prescriptive framework.

Who pays, who profits?

The final topic flipped the question of cost on its head, with both sides asking instead: who benefits from social value?

Risk emphasised partnership: “Social value is a shared undertaking, delivered in collaboration with developers, central, regional and local government together, with other parties like training partners, to deliver tailored programmes to meet a local community’s need.”  

Which was echoed by Barnes who talked about “The real cost is in schemes that fail to deliver.” She said we should all be asking “Not about who bears the cost, but who bears the benefit of doing it well?”

In response, Fletcher drew parallels with banking to show how government can deliver collaborative and supportive regulation: “It’s extremely nuanced and embedded, but it still achieves the overarching goal. Surely our industry could achieve something similar?”

Watkins-Brazier suggested that financial and insurance pressures might drive internal regulation faster than legislation. Barnes agreed, noting that government’s role should be to enable new business models, not impose top-down rules.

Risk highlighted a “perfect storm” in the construction industry: a skills shortage, matched with an aging workforce and low interest in joining the industry. She suggests this could be tackled with better programmes for upskilling and helping young people find a place for them in the built environment, and points to the Places for London Skills Academy, which helps to meet this challenge, having trained thousands of learners across the capital.

Rounding off our debate, Watkins-Brazier took us from this broad issue into a relatively small story which was nonetheless important to a Hebridean community she worked with. Their top request of developers wouldn’t tackle an industry crisis or fit neatly into a regular KPI list… they just wanted more frequent visits from the ice cream van.

A narrow win and a broader message

With two votes in it, the motion passed.

But that narrow margin reflects the strength of arguments on both sides and more importantly, a shared belief that both regulatory levers and industry-led initiatives have a role to play in delivering meaningful social value.

What can we take from this?

Community voices are essential. The most meaningful social value often comes from listening to local needs. Whether that’s rethinking play areas for the needs of teenage girls or trucking ice creams up to the Hebrides, you don’t know what’s needed until you speak with local people directly.

Real estate already delivers value. Section 106 agreements provide vital contributions to communities, from transport and schools to parks and affordable housing. Yet those initiatives can be seen by our industry as separate from social value, and not seen by local people as an asset provided by the developers who help bring them about.

Our debate begs a new question: does our industry do enough to speak directly to those who feel the impact of our work?

That might just be our next debate topic!

‍