In contrast, the UK’s framing focuses not just on creating better places, but on demonstrating long‑term economic, environmental and social responsibility.

What does ‘good growth’ mean?

‘Good growth’ operates more like a set of shared values: flexible and rooted in local context. This echoes the evolution of social value, where each place and community creates its own definition of what ‘good’ looks like.

It’s about investing in people, places and spaces rather than prioritising quick wins or short‑term cost savings. It places purpose at the centre of placemaking, ensuring development is inclusive and merges economic and social ambition, while recognising the importance of local economies.

Who contributes, and where does ‘good growth’ happen?

‘Good growth’ is not dictated from the top down. Instead, it emerges from a collective, bottom‑up conversation involving a wide range of stakeholders beyond the investor, developer and local authority, each bringing distinct insights, pressures and priorities. Young people contribute a long‑term perspective; local communities provide lived experience. Making this work requires genuine listening and inclusive engagement.

Collaboration is essential, even if responsibility is shared rather than singular. Effective regional partnerships show that when leadership and ambition are aligned, outcomes can be more cohesive and transformative. Greater Manchester offers a reference point: a shared strategic framework, strong public‑private collaboration, targeted growth areas and lessons learned from previous schemes, all underpinned by a focus on people, economic resilience and social outcomes.

‘Good growth’ takes root where stakeholders are brought along on the journey, expectations are realistic, and planning is used as a tool to support long‑term placemaking rather than short‑term delivery. In this context, success is measured not by speed, but by sustained, collaborative progress.

What are the biggest barriers?

‘Good growth’ requires a broad, long‑term perspective, yet planning systems often encourage a narrow focus on red‑line boundaries shaped by inflexible policy frameworks. Relatively short-term political leadership cycles can further constrain strategic thinking. At the same time, development viability is influenced by a complex combination of factors including market conditions, policy requirements, funding constraints and delivery risk, which can make it harder for the real estate sector alone to respond to wider social and economic challenges.

Collaboration across neighbouring sites is often inconsistent, and limited strategic spatial planning can make cross‑boundary coordination difficult. While many investment models remain weighted towards near‑term returns, long‑term impact investment can still be harder to justify when assessed primarily through financial performance alone. As schemes progress from concept to delivery, the scope to adapt proposals in line with emerging principles of good growth also narrows.

What are the solutions?

Regionally, there are encouraging signs that government is strengthening the foundations for long‑term spatial planning through more stable and strategic frameworks. The emergence of Mayoral Combined County Authorities (MCCAs), alongside closer alignment within the real estate sector through the formation of RE:UK, is helping to create a more consistent platform for collaboration and investment. There is growing hope that this is creating more consistent conditions, shaped through deeper private‑sector engagement and flexible enough to respond as priorities evolve.

‘Good growth’ depends on genuine investment in social value, collaboration and the belief that real estate can shape better futures when economic, environmental and social goals align.

Further information

Contact Olivia Sutcliffe

Find out more by reading 'Managing sustainability and social value in retrofit projects'