Scotland 2050: Vacant and Derelict Land

Published as a think piece on Scotland’s National Planning Framework 4 by the Scottish Government’s Planning Directorate, October 2019

Scotland currently has around 11,600 hectares of vacant and derelict land, spread across 3,700 sites. Since the Vacant and Derelict Land Register was created 30 years ago, many sites have been brought back into productive use, but the total area has barely changed and many sites, particularly small sites in areas of multiple deprivation, have remained untouched. These sites have a disproportionate impact on the communities around them, so we must find ways of bringing them back into use.  

Many of these sites exist as the legacy of Scotland’s industrial past, but by no means all of them. It is important, looking ahead to 2050, that as well as dealing with existing sites we create a culture change that embeds the expectation across all sectors that sites must be re-used. We have to future-proof development against the risk of new sites becoming vacant and derelict and this is where the planning system will play a key role.  

A key question about the future of these sites is what is “productive” use? The planning purpose outlined in NPF4 to “manage the development and use of land in the long term public interest” clearly points to the need for sustainable development and the importance of considering the social and environmental benefits of development, as well as the economic ones. Vacant and derelict land has an important role to play in meeting greenhouse gas reduction targets (for example by creation of urban woodlands) and providing community benefits that deliver social value. For this to happen effectively, local consultation will be key, but it must take place within a wider strategy that provides stability and transparency to investors, allowing them to create new financial instruments designed to unlock regeneration. Rather than re-invent the wheel, it would make sense for the planning system to adapt to accommodate these requirements.  

The majority of vacant and derelict sites are located in the Central Belt, particularly in Glasgow and there is undoubtedly a strong correlation between vacant and derelict sites and former industrial areas. However, it is not purely an urban problem and arguably vacant and derelict sites in more remote areas are even more problematic. Expanding the range of factors that are considered in terms of causes of harm (e.g. health, community impact, biodiversity loss and economic) and therefore the benefits that can be delivered by mitigating these factors may change the balance in terms of cost-benefit analysis that is currently preventing such sites from being redeveloped.

The planning system has the most direct policy impact on regeneration. In particular, the issue of land reform and the use of Compulsory Sales Orders. NPF4 can support the delivery of high profile “demonstrator” sites that provide “proof-of-concept” for other vacant and derelict sites, and also the development of practical decision-making tools for communities and others to use.  

NPF4 could also encourage the creation of development planning areas, which should be linked to City Deals, and secure the engagement of large economic actors such as the NHS, Scotland’s universities and financial institutions in delivering benefits to the communities local to their operations.

In summary, by 2050: 

  • The area of vacant and derelict land in Scotland will be cut by at least half, bringing over 5,000 hectares of land back into productive use.

  • We succeed in changing perception of vacant and derelict land to seeing the opportunity to deliver social and environmental benefits, including creating stronger local communities and creating a net zero carbon economy.

  • We create a socially responsible corporate culture that makes it unacceptable for sites to become abandoned in the first place, making the very concept of vacant and derelict land a redundant one.

Landlords and tenants must work together to achieve net zero carbon targets

Abstract from a paper published in the Journal of Building Surveying, Appraisal & Valuation, Volume 9, Number 2, November 2020

Energy usage in existing buildings contributes 30% of the UK’s total carbon emissions. If we are to meet the government’s 2050 net zero target, then the refurbishment of our existing buildings needs to be at the forefront of what we are doing.

Legislation is certainly helping to drive the issues forwards. The Streamlined Energy and Carbon Reporting (SECR) legislation means that almost 12,000 businesses now have mandatory carbon and energy reporting commitments, which, it is hoped, will motivate them to put into place measures to reduce energy use and save costs. The increasing scrutiny from investors on the Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) performance of their investments means landlords are also increasingly recognising that carrying out energy efficiency improvements is the best way to reposition their assets in the marketplace.

However, commercial leases currently put significant barriers between landlords and tenants and their ability to implement improvements to reduce carbon usage in buildings. To push forward the sustainability agenda we need to see much greater landlord/tenant collaboration. This will require a fundamental shift in culture and the way leases are drafted, towards the green lease model. Green leases enable landlords and tenants to work together to reduce their buildings’ environmental impact and include clauses which provide for improvements in the building’s environmental performance by both landlords and tenants. They also set out the way in which reinstatement is dealt with at lease end.

Between now and 2050 there may only be couple of refurbishment cycles available, so landlords need to start acting now.

SECR: Green opportunity - or more red tape?

Published on the Hollis website, February 2019

The Streamlined Energy and Carbon Reporting (SECR) framework – which replaces the much-criticised Carbon Reduction Commitment (CRC) scheme – will be introduced on 1 April 2019.  Although schemes like SECR and CRC might be perceived as a burden they offer a means for businesses to measure and reduce their environmental impacts – crucial measures in the face of global environmental challenges such as climate change. 

Many businesses will be pleased to see the back of CRC, but the new framework still requires a complex raft of carbon and energy reporting with overlapping data and submissions.  In fact, SECR broadens the scope of the old scheme so that from April the number of businesses that will be obligated to report their greenhouse gas emissions under SECR will be treble that under the old regime – affecting an additional 8000 businesses.  

Businesses need to assess whether they will fall under SECR and start planning now if they do. The mandatory reporting demanded by SECR will undoubtedly generate more paperwork but, with greater awareness of energy consumption it is anticipated that the scheme will also generate considerable energy cost savings. 

Who does SECR apply to?

Effectively most large businesses will be subject to SECR.  All quoted companies fell under CRC and they will continue to be covered by SECR.  SECR will also apply to ‘large’ unquoted companies and LLPs.  ‘Large’ means those that have two or more of:

·       More than 250 employees

·       Turnover more than £36m

·       Annual balance sheet more than £18m

 There are some exemptions, most notably for businesses that consume less than 40MWh.  However, under the CRC the threshold was 6000MWh – so the new SECR limit will encompass many more businesses.  To put this in perspective, it’s roughly equivalent to just 2.5 times the typical annual domestic consumption.[1]   

With regards to landlord/tenant arrangements, the guidance states that the party responsible for the consumption of energy should take the responsibility for SECR reporting, and this should include energy consumption in rented serviced areas, where a tenant should report on energy consumption, despite not being directly responsible for its purchase.  If energy consumption data is not available through sub-meters, for example, estimates should be used.

What are the benefits of SECR?

Although there will be additional paperwork and reporting, the government foresees that businesses reporting under SECR will reap benefits too: from 2019-2035 the government forecasts savings of £1,549m.

 The savings will – it is anticipated – come about through more energy efficiency awareness.  It is hoped that by increasing transparency in reporting, it will become clear to company management that energy is a real bottom line cost and that there are genuine opportunities to cut energy use.  Keeping tabs on energy consumption - and introducing measures to address wastage and inefficiencies identified – should mean that businesses will use less energy, bringing carbon savings and saving money.  

 Further, businesses should also benefit from boosting their green credentials. This is becoming increasingly important as consumer choice continues to shift towards ethical and environmentally responsible businesses. Landlords will also benefit from the increased transparency as carbon and energy reporting becomes normalised. Tenant reporting obligations will also help landlords meet their own sustainability targets and energy efficient properties will be more attractive to tenants
What SECR will require

As under the CRC, the new framework will require energy and carbon data to be integrated into the annual directors’ report that quoted companies and some LLPs must send to Companies House.  Bespoke energy and carbon reports will be required from other businesses covered by SECR. 

The reports must include information relating to Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions, total energy use and an intensity matrix (emissions expressed as a ratio relating to, for example, revenue or the number of employees).  Additional information must also be provided explaining what energy efficiency measures have been actioned over the financial year. 

It’s worth noting that most businesses that are taking part in the Energy Savings Opportunity Scheme (ESOS) are likely to be captured under SECR too and data gathered for ESOS will also be useful when producing SECR reports.

[1] Calculated using ‘medium user’ data from: https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/gas/retail-market/monitoring-data-and-statistics/typical-domestic-consumption-values

 

Brexit: a unique environmental opportunity?

First published in EG, May 2017

Under the Scotland Act, environmental regulation is one area of law-making that is almost entirely devolved. Over the past 18 years this has led to divergence in environmental legislation north and south of the border, particularly in the areas of waste, water and environmental assessment. However, up until now the impact of EU law has prevented any significant differences between Scottish and English legislation, more of which later.

In 2010, Defra introduced the Environmental Permitting Regulations (EPR) in England and Wales, which combine a number of regulations and licensing regimes that were previously regulated separately, including pollution prevention and control (PPC), waste management, water abstraction and discharge and radioactive substances. Although most breaches of environmental law are criminal offences, the penalties for which are usually an unlimited fine and/or imprisonment of up to two years, legislation was also introduced in 2010 to give regulators in England the power to impose civil sanctions on businesses as an alternative to prosecution for certain types of breaches, including breaches of environmental legislation. Penalties include fixed monetary penalties and ‘enforcement undertakings’ – specific reparations to make good or compensate for environmental damage.

In 2011, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) published proposals on sweeping changes to enable better environmental regulation.  Many of the proposals emulated innovations that had already been introduced in England, including fixed and variable monetary penalties and enforcement undertakings. A consultation has recently closed on the implementation of an Integrated Authorisation Framework that aims to simplify and clarify the authorisation procedures across four regimes – waste, PPC, radioactive substances and water. The Framework will also re-transpose a number of EU directives and replace a number of pieces of existing legislation. Although the overall approach appears the same and SEPA have clearly developed their proposals with reference to the regimes in England, there are also some significant differences, mainly in the overarching outcomes and different tiers of authorisation proposed in Scotland.

So what about Brexit? The impact of EU law is particularly pronounced in the area of environmental law. Some instruments, such as the Birds and Habitats Directives, are directly applicable in the UK, establishing clear obligations to conserve biodiversity. The requirements of other instruments such as the Water and Waste Framework Directives have dominated the domestic law made in those areas. Even areas that have remained under predominantly national control such as the town and country planning systems have been significantly impacted by EU law. So it is not a straightforward task to identify those measures that are required by EU law and separate them from those that are purely domestic.

The Great Repeal Bill (GRB) will preserve the corpus of EU law until such times as the Government and Parliament replaces them. In Scotland, this will fall to the Scottish government and parliament to decide how to use the freedom that Brexit will bring. The Scottish government has confirmed that it has no plans to amend or revoke any environmental legislation as a result of the referendum. It has also expressed a desire to remain part of the European Single Market, retain freedom of movement and secure powers to serve Scotland’s interests post-Brexit. Demanding a second independence referendum is of course the SNP’s preferred means of achieving these aims; however even if Scotland remains part of the UK there could still be greater divergence in environmental regulations and standards across the UK. This could lead to practical difficulties for businesses with cross-border operations and interests. For example, even before Brexit, there was a drive towards deregulation in England (the “Red Tape Challenge”) that wasn’t seen in Scotland. Important sectors of Scotland’s economy, particularly tourism and food and drink, are strongly dependent on the perception of a pristine environment, providing a powerful driver for Scotland to conserve and use its biodiversity assets in a way that is unlikely to have the same prominence in England. However, the GRB White Paper introduced the concept of a “UK single market” and states that the Government’s guiding principle is to “ensure that no new barriers to living and doing business within our own Union are created” after leaving the EU. In reality, this could mean re-reserving of powers from Edinburgh to Westminster, something that will be strongly resisted by the SNP and pointed to as substantiating the argument for a second independence referendum.

The loss of stability that EU law brings could mean that over time, environmental law and policy become much more volatile and subject to short-term political goals. More frequent changes of policy and direction make it harder for industry to plan ahead and for investors to cost potential risks, for example expenditure on sustainability and energy efficiency measures in buildings. These types of uncertainties could affect where capital flows in the commercial property market.

The EU has also provided mechanisms for governments to be held to account over environmental commitments, allowing action to be taken to ensure that they meet their obligations. As there is no domestic equivalent, the loss of this layer of governmental accountability will create a serious “enforcement gap”. Unless new independent bodies are created, the only mechanism for challenging the government will be judicial review, which with the different legal systems in Scotland and England could again lead to further divergence in the law.

The GRB White Paper was very light on detail and as the Government does not intend to publish a draft bill, it is difficult to predict exactly what the implications of regulatory changes will be as a result of Brexit. One thing that is certain is that there is a unique opportunity to explore ways of improving environmental legislation and now is the time to be part of that conversation.

Why building surveyors need to be aware of environmental issues

Abstract from a paper published in the Journal of Building Survey, Appraisal & Valuation, Volume 6, Number 4, April 2018

Environmental liabilities can have a huge impact on the value of a property and their remediation can come at significant cost. This is not just an issue confined to the due diligence process at acquisition: landlords and tenants of leased properties may also find themselves burdened with expensive and unforeseen dilapidations liabilities, sometimes years down the line. This paper sets our several case studies, providing examples of real-life scenarios which serve to outline the need for a thorough and proactive approach. Building surveyors have long been alert to the presence of invasive species and asbestos - but they need to also be aware of broader contamination issues (albeit at a basic level) and know when the specialist input of an Environmental Consultant is required.

Property has a very important role to play in slowing climate change

First published in the Environment Journal, 15th November 2018

We have until 2030 to avert a global warming catastrophe. That was the stark warning given by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in October when it unequivocally stated that urgent, unprecedented action was needed to keep global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, annually, and that if we fail to heed this warning, the result will be more extreme heat, heavier rainfall and consequently drought, flooding and other climate related disasters. The “unprecedented” changes required must deliver net zero carbon pollution by 2030, just 12 years away.  

Buildings and infrastructure account for around 35% of resources globally and nearly 40% of energy use and carbon emissions. The message from the IPCC is clear – it’s no longer enough to pass blame to larger polluters, we all contribute to the problem and must, therefore, all act to reach the solution.

It is also not enough to aim to meet statutory requirements and no more. Settling for an E rated EPC is not going to cut it, each project that aims for excellence in sustainability sets the true and required expectation that we need.

This is not a problem that will be solved at government level, it’s a societal issue and change will be driven by market forces – consumer spending habits, investor expectations and the demands of the workforce on employers. As awareness for the dangers of climate change grows, so does the sense of corporate social responsibility of the labour force, who now more than ever, are keen to work for companies that make conscious efforts to act as ‘green’ employers. It also remains in the commercial interest of landlords and other private owners of commercial space who, to avoid the increasing demand cost of required improvements to operational efficiencies, can achieve both a competitive advantage over other, more complacent firms, and safeguard their profit margins. 

The transition to the low-carbon economy will have a significant impact on asset values and their capital returns. Again, seen as a direct result of consumer trends, owners of commercial property are seeing a trend for improved returns on assets that achieve a maximum efficiency rating. This, coupled with a growing number of assets achieving top-band accreditations, such as A and B ratings, rather than the minimum expected E, could lead to a devaluation of assets of poor efficiency – which look comparatively less attractive to occupiers.

According to the UKGBC, 80% of the UK’s building stock that will exist in 2050, has already been built. As much of it has been constructed with no real thought to energy efficiency or carbon emissions, we must be brutally aware of how we create sustainability in the industry as a whole, not just in future projects. On top of this, highly efficient new-build projects are failing in part to address the issue in real terms, only working to mitigate the predicted emissions growth – rather than reducing the aggregate output. To address the latter, we must face the reality that the majority of existing floor space is accounted for by inefficient stock. With a proper energy management strategy, the majority of this can be brought up to the required standards. We need to see less headlines around the latest FTSE 100 company to open a record-breaking eco-headquarters, and more focus on pressurising all commercial property owners to strive for the highest energy efficiency across their portfolios, which means retrofitting old stock.

Failure to properly evaluate such risk and impacts associated with climate change could also result in legal challenges. This is already happening. A Texan judge recently decided in favour of a group of shareholders who alleged that a fall in the value of ExxonMobil’s shares between 2014 and 2017 was caused by material misrepresentations or omissions on climate-change related risks. In the UK, the activist firm ClientEarth announced in August that it has reported three insurance firms to the Financial Conduct Authority for failure to disclose climate risks in their annual reports.  

So, what can the property industry do? Don’t just pay lip service to sustainability policies, actually use them to influence investment decisions. Stop seeing green buildings as a nice to have and therefore something that can be value engineered out at an early stage in the process. Change your thinking about what value is, how it is measured and reported. Collaborate, innovate and be bold. We must all pioneer our future, else risk losing it all.

Smart buildings, not so smart occupiers

First published in EG, 28th September 2019

As the sustainability agenda gathers steam, more buildings than ever are implementing smart technology. This technology ranges from placing smart meters in buildings to taking thermal mass into account during the building process, measures which are designed to achieve the best EPC rating possible.  

However, many of today’s most sustainably designed buildings have scored much lower than anticipated once in use. According to the UKGBC, there can be as much as a 250% performance gap between an EPC rating and the actual energy performance of a typical building.  

Even under the best-case scenario, the performance gap between the modelled performance reported on the EPC and the actual performance can be as large as 80%. The cause? The very tenants that reside inside the building. Occupiers are not using their buildings as efficiently as possible, rendering many sustainable buildings not very sustainable at all.

Sustainable Design 
We do not have to see the green roofs in London and Paris to know that sustainable design practices have impacted the property industry at every level. Construction businesses in the UK are taking pains to minimise construction waste and source materials sustainably, but eco-conscious builders take these practices one step further. Increasing insulation prevents heat from escaping buildings quickly, as does making windows and doors airtight. Many buildings are now built in consideration of thermal mass, allowing the building to regulate temperatures easily.   

Whilst these initiatives are important parts of reducing the carbon footprint of the built environment, much of their efficacy comes down to tenant use, and it is here that sustainability methods falter. Occupiers overusing specially designed HVAC systems often override all positive effects of the system. UK occupiers are some of the worst offenders when it comes to inefficient use of air conditioning - Daikin sell more wall controllers in the UK than they do in the rest of the world combined.

The same is true of tenants opening windows whilst using the heating, using smart energy meters in a decidedly unintelligent way, or installing an incorrect fixture where a more sustainable one was intended.  The best way to ensure that a building that has been designed to be sustainable remains sustainable, is to remove control from the users. However, what impact does this have on wellbeing? 

It is also not an uncommon occurrence to find buildings that have been constructed incorporating sustainable technologies such as combined heat and power (CHP) or biomass boilers, that are then never used. There can be many reasons for this, including equipment being wrongly specified in the first place and not being able to provide a suitable load once the building is in use, not being able to source or store biomass fuel or simply that no-one knows how to use it.  

Often it’s not a technical issue at all – funds may be available within a capital budget to install a renewable or low energy technology, but then there is no money within the operational budget to use it. Landlords and tenants need to work together better to ensure that refurbishments and fit-outs create zero carbon buildings. These are artificial barriers that can be removed by looking carefully at contracts and thinking through the, perhaps unintended, consequences of the interests of the various stakeholders involved at different stages in a building’s lifecycle being incompatible.

Performance Measurement 
True sustainability cannot be achieved without collecting data. Put simply, if you don’t know where you’re starting from, there’s no way to know where you’re going. However, too much information becomes meaningless, therefore we as an industry must determine the right information to gather and how to use it.   

Much of the data we need to collect surrounds the way that occupiers, both commercial and residential, interact with the buildings they live and work in. Usage studies must be the way forward, to identify the most unsustainable practices. The findings of these surveys will help us determine whether the occupier who opens windows whilst blasting the air conditioning has a carbon footprint equal to the occupier who does not utilise smart technology at all. These surveys also serve to identify the methods that are most truly sustainable, allowing designers and construction professionals alike to focus on the methods that are most effective and most likely to achieve buy-in from occupiers.

Barriers to Change 
True change is difficult to impact in any industry, and the property industry is no exception. We are used to what we know, and unfortunately, the most sustainable solution is not always the most obvious or straightforward one.   

Various commitments have been made by local and central governments to be net zero carbon between 2038 and 2050. In the absence of legislation, the main focus is currently on targeting individual behaviour. This emphasis on the individual - asking people to make or accept changes that compromise their comfort, runs the risk of significant backlash without evidence that large institutions are sharing in the burden.  

However, the fact remains that the world is on fire, and the flames are licking our collective doorstep. Just this summer, we have experienced some of the most devastating environmental impacts that the world has ever seen. Tropical storms are growing in strength and size. Glaciers are disappearing. The Amazon is burning to the ground.  

Individual actions matter; the largest barrier to sustainability when it comes to use is changing the deeply-seated habits of a building’s occupiers. Because changing habits also changes thinking, and to be really effective, those actions must aggregate into pressure on those who can make the biggest systemic changes – governments, councils and landlords.

The climate crisis is an economic crisis

First published on LinkedIn, 25th August 2019

Where were you when the Earth burned?

Imagine opening your curtains tomorrow morning to see your street on fire. The flames are licking their way towards your house, your eyes, nose and throat are stinging from the acrid smoke filling the air. What would you do?

Right now, the Amazon is burning and it is as much of a threat to us as if the flames were at our own front door. This summer has also seen massive wildfires in Alaska, Bolivia and Greenland. It is less than a year since the town of Paradise in California was decimated by the worst wildfire in a century; 90% of its population has left and those who remain there wait with trepidation to see what this year's wildfire season brings. Australia has just experienced its third-hottest July on record (the other two hotter years being 2017 and 2018) with the warm winter following its hottest ever summer and a historic early start to the bushfire danger period. In the first half of 2019, the UK saw more moorland fires than any other year on record.

It has been reported this weekend that senior White House advisers at the G7 summit are frustrated at the prominence of "niche issues" like climate change on the agenda, when they want to focus on the economy. The UK is potentially only 10 weeks away from crashing out of the EU with no deal, which would have enormous consequences for the environment AND the economy.

The way we choose to measure economic growth, GDP, completely decouples financial capital, which has no value on its own, from the resources and systems that generate it - natural, human asocial capital. The Amazon wildfires should make plain the insanity of destroying Earth's ecosystems in the name of growth and expecting us to believe that it is a good thing.

We need sustainable economic activity by urgently transitioning to a low carbon economy, one where we fully recognise that the financial capital we generate only has a value for so long as the natural, human and social capital from which it is derived can sustain it. While we continue to refuse to acknowledge the true costs of our consumption, we also fail to recognise where we can create real value in mitigating, or reversing, the effects of centuries of depletion of our resources.

The alternative to our current western hemisphere lifestyle isn't to go back to living in caves and don't believe anyone who uses this straw man as a scare tactic to delegitimise those who question the status quo. No, the real prize is to seize the opportunity to develop new technologies, new economic models and new ways of thinking that transform all of our lives for the better. We can decide right now to live within our planetary boundaries, we know how to do it. We are lacking the political leadership in the USA and UK, but we can all add our voices to the demand for change until the cacaphony is deafening.

The first line of this article is taken from a poem by the amazing Nikita Gill (@nktgill) and I reproduce it here with her permission. Think about her words, and add your voice to the throng.

"Where were you when the earth burned?"

they will ask, and we will explain to them

about Brexit and Trump and Fake News

and billionaries and corporate taxes and big oil

and how it wasn't just the rainforest burning

but Afghanistan and Syria and Yemen

and Kashmir and Sudan were bleeding too

and the ice caps were melting

and the coral reef was dying

and the tigers and leopards

and elephants were going extinct

and of course, so many of us were fighting

but the well of truth was poisoned

so strongly and how we did not listen to

the environmentalists and scientists on time

because how does one fight monsters

when there are an eternity of them

to fight, we promise, we promise, we tried.

"Where were you when the earth burned?"

they will ask, and we will hold our hands out,

and take theirs and say, "we, too, like you,

were hoping, praying, wishing...

and just trying to survive."

Nikita Gill

Diversity, when you can't see the differences

First published on LinkedIn, 15th June 2019

I recently read a book called Lowborn, by Kerry Hudson. Lowborn is a memoir about Hudson’s chaotic and nomadic childhood in impoverished towns across the UK. It is a searing portrait of what it is like to have known true poverty, and what that does to a person. Two of the towns that Hudson lived in are Airdrie and Coatbridge, in North Lanarkshire. I know these places well, as I also grew up in North Lanarkshire and have relatives who lived in these towns. In fact they still do, and after a number of years away at university and living and working in Edinburgh, Leeds and London, I moved back to North Lanarkshire myself and settled close to the village I grew up in to be near my parents, who support me and my husband in looking after our children. When I reached the end of Hudson’s book, I realised that I had read it practically holding my breath the entire time. I consider it a piece of outrageous good fortune that I come from a loving family and was provided with a stable home life during my childhood, because although I recognised a lot of what she described about the communities she lived in, her own terrible experiences were completely alien to me due to the shelter I had from strong family bonds.

The book got me thinking. I am a white, middle-class, university-educated woman who has a conventional family life and a good job. I am under no illusions about my privilege. I talk a lot about my experiences of being a woman in the real estate sector, but what I do not really talk about, and very few people do, is what it is like to have got here from a working class background. It was by no means a given that I would end up where I have. It involved a lot of hard work, good luck and taking risk. But it is the definition of risk that is the key thing, because what I considered to be risky, many people wouldn’t even think twice about. The first risk is being ambitious in the first place. Marking yourself out as different makes you a prime target for bullying. Many bright, young, working class people fall by the wayside because it just becomes too hard to be different to the crowd. Deciding whether to go to university, or move cities to take a job, looks very different when you can’t rely on your parents for money. Taking an unpaid internship to gain experience is completely out of the question. Even finding work experience is hard, because your mum and dad don’t know anyone they can ask to give you a break. Explaining why you didn’t join any clubs at university because you spent all your spare time working in shops and bars and studying. Saying nothing at networking events when everyone is talking about their experiences travelling on their gaps years. Having literally no idea what to say when someone asks you where you go for the ski season. Making great new friends during your Masters then one day seeing the look of shock on their faces when they see a photo of you standing outside your parents’ house. That sense of dislocation when you are surrounded by people who look just like you, but you know that you are not one of them and for many years you live with the fear that if they find that out, they will cast you out. That may sound very dramatic, but that is what imposter syndrome is.

If you’ve never heard these stories, then how can you be expected to understand how crucial your own support networks have been to your success, to appreciate them and cut some slack to people who haven’t had those same advantages? How can you make active choices to help people who don’t have the advantages you’ve had? Well, you can’t, and that is why I am going to tell you my story.

Like Hudson, I have worked since I was fourteen years old. My first job was waitressing for an outside caterer, what we call in the west of Scotland a “purvey”. I spent my weekends serving dinners in bowling clubs, at wedding receptions in town halls, at boxing matches, Orange lodges, masonic halls and working mens’ clubs. That stood me in very good stead for entering a male-dominated work environment later on. The shifts were twelve hours long, the work was physical and we were on our feet the whole time. We had to wear white blouses and black skirts for service. I invite you to imagine what it might have been like, and then to remember that I did this between the ages of fourteen and sixteen.

At sixteen, I got a job in a supermarket. It felt like winning the lottery. I worked there, for 20 hours a week, until I left school. So throughout the entire time I was doing my Highers, that was 20 hours a week behind a bakery counter when I could’ve been studying. I did well enough in my Highers to get an offer from Edinburgh University, where I went to study geology. It was 1993, the last year of maintenance grants. Had it not been for my grant, I definitely wouldn’t have gone to Edinburgh. I would still have gone to university, but it would have been Glasgow and I would have stayed at home, studying for my degree whilst living in a small 3-bedroom semi with my parents and three younger siblings. Throughout university, I had a succession of jobs in bars and shops and did office work during the summer holidays. In retrospect I would have been better off staying at home from a financial point of view, but I was desperate to get away. The nauseous feeling of not being sure whether I was going to make my rent was not an unfamiliar one and I developed many new culinary skills at this time, as I learnt to be ever more imaginative with a bag of pasta and some vegetables. In her book Hudson talks about “passing”, where you gain acceptance because of your outward appearance and because you’ve learned to look, talk and act a certain way. Because your “face fits”, as her mother says to her. Edinburgh was my first experience of real culture shock, and it was during this time that I deliberately did things like modulate my voice to sound less “weegie” (Glaswegian), and ergo, less working class.

Eventually, I obtained a 2:1 in Geology from Edinburgh followed by a Masters in Geochemistry from Leeds University. In 1999, I saw an advert in a newspaper for a job with an environmental consultancy in Glasgow. I was still living in Edinburgh at the time. I applied, was interviewed, and they offered me the job. The salary was £12,000 per year. Now, I could not afford to live in Edinburgh and work in Glasgow on £12,000 per year. Once I factored in the travel costs, I would’ve been out of pocket. I went back and asked them for £14,000, and they withdrew their offer. So that was my first experience of negotiating my salary! Perhaps not surprisingly, I get very cross when I read articles about why the gender pay gap is women’s fault for just not asking for more money. After this unfortunate false start, I did get a good graduate job and over the course of the past 20 years I have worked my way up to my current position with Malcolm Hollis.

I moved back to North Lanarkshire in 2006 in order to start a family. My parents provide childcare and as a result of that, I was able to make decisions to help advance my career that otherwise would not have been available to me. I have always travelled a lot for work, and between having their support and a partner with whom I do genuinely share child-rearing responsibilities, I have not had to choose between work and family in the way that other women I know have. I also did not have to shell out thousands of pounds in childcare costs. For anyone who wants to know how I do it, I’ve managed to leverage that strong family unit so that we all use our strengths to everyone’s mutual advantage.

My parents live in the same house I grew up in and my children go to the same primary school I did. Their house, and the school, are in a former mining village that scores in the top 5% for all indicators on the Scottish Multiple Index of Deprivation. That is, it is in the top 5% in the country for people who are income deprived and in receipt of benefits, who are hospitalised due to drug misuse or alcoholism, who are prescribed drugs for anxiety, depression or psychosis, whose babies are of low birth weight, who are victims of crimes of violence, sexual offences, domestic housebreaking, vandalism, drug offences and common assault, who live in overcrowded houses with no central heating, who have the worst pupil attendance rates at school, the highest proportion of 16-19 year olds not in full-time education, employment or training and the lowest proportion of 17-21 year olds entering higher education and who have the poorest access to facilities such as GP surgeries, post offices, schools and shops. My own house is one mile away from the village, and on all indicators it is in one of the least deprived areas of Scotland. It is literally the polar opposite. Back in the early 1980s, it was the time of the miners’ strikes and the impact of that on families in my community was very visible. I was acutely aware of the haves and have-nots (luckily for me, my dad didn't work in the pits and I was a “have”). Thankfully the days of making children on free school dinners line up in front of the class for their dinner tickets and stand in separate queues at lunchtime are long gone; however what it does mean is that my own children live cheek by jowl with children from some of the poorest families in the country, and they aren’t even aware of it. How is anyone growing up in an affluent neighbourhood supposed to empathise with a life they can’t even begin to imagine because they don’t even know it exists?

I do not want to belittle anyone’s achievements. I know most people who have done well in a professional career have worked hard for it and indeed my whole point is that you never know what challenges someone has faced. But if you are poor, there are more of them, the chances of failure are higher and the consequences of that failure are petrifying. If you are poor, then it’s also likely that you are terrible at financial planning. You haven’t grown up with the concept of saving for the future. That is not an option for people who live hand-to-mouth. You are terrified of debt – what happens if you can’t make the repayments? I was in my fourth year at university before I took out a student loan, and even then that was only because I had no choice. Lots of my peers took out the maximum loan every year and stuck it in a high interest account. I would never have dared, even though arguably it was the financially astute thing to do. I know more than one person who later used that money towards a deposit for a flat. And ironically, you don’t understand how to budget once you have more money than just that required to meet your basic needs. No one teaches you these things – not your parents, because they don’t know either, and certainly not at school.

Then there’s the rules. Each social class has its own set of rules and they are largely unspoken and even subconscious. If you do not belong to the tribe, then you don’t know the rules. If you join a new tribe, then there is a constant risk that you are going to give the game away because you have broken a rule you didn’t even know existed. Maybe it’s your pronunciation, maybe it’s your politics. Maybe it’s having no idea how to network, or not owning any clothes you can wear to a black tie event. I went to my first ever ball at the end of my first year of university. I bought a dress from River Island, my mum came shopping with me. It was basically a summer dress, and it was above the knee. I bought it because I loved it. On the evening of the ball, it became apparent that every other girl I knew had a proper ballgown. I had never felt so out of place in my life, and actually I don’t think I have again since, even when I’ve been the only woman in a room full of men.

No one ever makes it on their own. We all have help in some shape or form. Do not judge people who haven’t had the hand up that you have. Be mindful of your privilege and pay it forward. Some practical things you can do – have some training in unconscious bias, engage with organisations who support schools and young people in disadvantaged communities (I have included some links below - I know there are others, please feel free to put links in a comment to this post), volunteer your time to go into those schools and talk about what you do – a lot of these kids don’t even know our industry exists, never mind our jobs. Get out of your bubble and meet people who are different to you. Read Lowborn.

And don’t judge me for eating all the good biscuits first, if I didn’t someone else would.

MIPIM: The Conversation is Changing

First published on LinkedIn, 22 March 2018

This year was my fourth at MIPIM and I was interested to see how it would compare to previous years in the aftermath of the President's Club dinner. Beforehand, there was a palpable nervousness around the degree of scrutiny the conference would be under, with people genuinely worried about inadvertently ending up on the wrong end of an expose. Some firms were so concerned that they pulled their delegations altogether.

So what was it like in the event? Much the same as any other year. We hosted a series of excellent events with fantastic guests. I made some great new connections and cemented existing ones. I walked for miles and was pleased that I managed to do 5k with the Property Run club on Wednesday morning. There was certainly more discussion on diversity and gender equality, and I found myself telling male friends and colleagues stories that to me, are matter-of-fact, but to them were deeply shocking.

Unfortunately, I was also on the receiving end of some harassment. Only two men out of the many thousands that were in Cannes, but it's still two too many. My response to both of these men was the one I've learned over many years - ignore the outrageous comment, firmly but politely ask them to refrain from touching me, and turn away. My number one priority is to avoid the situation escalating. However, an interesting thing happened last week - after I told him to go away, one of these men approached another woman. She complained to staff and he was thrown out.

Why didn't I do that? To be honest it never occurred to me. I did what I always do - dealt with it, moved on and then beyond telling a few people as an anecdote, don't mention it again. But this is what has changed. The recognition that we need to tell our stories; that this is how the paradigm shifts and we all stop turning a blind eye to, or tolerating, unacceptable behaviour. And I must point out, although I didn't complain, I was not completely unaided. Other men did step in and offer to help me.

There is no getting away from the fact that MIPIM is still a very male environment. As others have pointed out before me, this is a reflection of the industry in general and changing it will be a long, slow process. There are things we can do now, starting with encouraging women to go to MIPIM. You may think you don't fancy it, or it's not for you, but there are myriad ways to do MIPIM and the professional opportunities are unparalleled.

Seek out women who have been before, either through Women in Property, MIPIM Women, REWIRE, through your own network or searching LinkedIn. For one thing, it's good networking in its own right. And for another, I and every other senior woman I know, would be happy to give support and advice.

Everyone at MIPIM needs to remember that it's work. When you strike up a conversation with a stranger and they are being smiley and friendly, your only thought should be that this is a professional interaction, whether it's 11am or 11pm. If you wouldn't say or do it in the office, don't say or do it at MIPIM.