Election 2024: what’s *new* about New Towns?
“A New Jerusalem” - Basildon in the sunshine.
At last. Here we are. It’s crunch time. They say a week is a long time in politics: well, by next week we may (if the polls can be trusted) have a Labour government. Later this same month (if the Times can be trusted) we may have (i) a new draft NPPF, and (ii) a letter from our new Secretary of State to local planning authorities requiring them to review Green Belt boundaries “regularly” to meet housing targets. And more to come.
It’s all go, eh. Enough to make your head spin. For anyone who wants a break from the noise, and a little get-together post-election - can I invite you to this. A webinar we’re doing the morning after the night before, as it were (well, 1pm this Friday 5th July 2024 to be exact) where I, Isabella Buono and Ashley Bowes of Landmark along with the wonderful Nikita Sellers of Town Legal will give a series of the hottest of hot takes on whatever the results may mean for us all. Do log in and join us for an hour if you’re free. Registration here.
Meanwhile, it’s been a bumper couple of weeks in the courts. To name but two biggies:
In Finch, the Supreme Court decided (by a 3-2 majority, with a very powerful dissenting minority judgment which disagrees with the majority on just about every point) that greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of oil was an indirect effect of the oil’s extraction, so needed to be considered as part of an environmental impact assessment supporting a planning application for new oil wells at Horse Hill in Surrey. For a great summary of the judgment and its implications, can I refer you to David Elvin KC, who acted for the developer in the case, see here.
In CG Fry, the Court of Appeal held that - in the context of nutrient neutrality wars (on which see here) - Regulation 63 of the Habitats Regulations applies to the determination of reserved matters approvals and discharging planning conditions. Nutrient neutrality baton now passed to whichever party forms the next Government. For a summary, see Simon Ricketts here (full disclosure: I acted in the case for the House Builders Federation and the Land, Planning and Development Federation).
But this week, poised as we seem to be on the cusp of a new regime (and I’m not just talking about England’s post-Gareth Southgate era)… I want to talk about something major. Something… big. We’re all #planoraks, here, right? So we have a thing for towns. Maybe not all towns. But the good ones (you know which you are). OK then: how would you feel about… some new towns?
As you know, a core plank of Labour’s #plan-ifesto is to “build a new generation of new towns, inspired by the proud legacy of the 1945 Labour government” by creating “a series of large-scale new communities across England”.
At UKREiiF in May 2024, Angela Rayner gave us a little more detail than we find in the manifesto:
Where will they be? How many? Well “an expert independent taskforce will be set up to help choose the right sites and a list of projects will be announced within our first 12 months of government, so we can start building the towns of the future within months, not decades”.
When will it happen? Labour want “homes on these sites within the first term of a Labour government”.
Labour will draft up a “New Towns Code” which will include requirements for 40% affordable housing, tree-lined streets, locally-inspired design, “good links to town and city centres”,“guaranteed public transport and public services, from doctors’ surgeries to schools” and access to nature and children’s play spaces.
So. How does that sound to you? What do we know about the new towns we already have, and what lessons might the new town experience of the 20th century in England offer to a new Labour Government? Is any of this actually going to work?
Can we take a little step back:
What are “new towns”?
Come with me back to 1945. Many of our cities were scarred - and scarred deeply - by the Blitz. Here’s a view of that time from next to St Paul’s Cathedral - I can see it up the road from my room in Landmark Chambers where I’m typing this sentence:
Clem Atlee’s Labour Party campaigned on the idea of forging a “New Jerusalem” - re-making the country afresh. That platform brought us the NHS, the welfare state, the planning system (through the Town and Country Planning Act 1947) and the planning system’s close cousin, the new towns programme through the New Towns Act 1946.
The dream of the new towns was all about clean air, open space, good quality housing matched with secure employment - a fresh start for people fleeing the war-ravaged cities to raise their families in a new peace. A new start. A new town.
Clem set up a commission chaired by Lord Reith - that Lord Reith who used to run the BBC. The Commission recommended that the new towns should have populations of up to 60,000, should be built on greenfield sites, should comprise single family homes at low densities, organised around local shops and schools, with a balance of employment.
Who would create all of this? Development corporations - public corporations set up, sponsored and financed by central government through Treasury loans, with punchy planning, compulsory purchase and development powers. Their masterplanning approach was a relative of Ebenezer Howard’s Garden City movement – influenced by Corbusian modernism.
Spacious, modern, comfortable living. That was the idea.
Only a couple of years after the first wave of new towns being designated, houses started springing out of the ground in places like Basildon, Bracknell, Crawley, Hatfield, Harlow, Hemel Hempstead and Stevenage. Was it always popular? I mean… come on. This is England. These are new developments. They made lots of people very, very unhappy. If you want a wonderful picture on the sort of resistance new towns faced, let me take you back to the case of Franklin v Minister of Town and Country Planning [1948] A.C. 87. In that case, the Minister - Lewis Silkin - made some punchy statements in favour of the then draft Stevenage New Town Designation Order at a public meeting in advance of his considering objections to the Order after a public inquiry. The transcript included:
"I want to carry out a daring exercise in town planning — ( Jeers ). It is no good your jeering it is going to be done — ( Applause and boos ). (Cries of 'Dictator')." After all this new town is to be built in order to provide for the happiness and welfare of some sixty thousand men, women and children ....,. The project will go forward. It will do so more smoothly and more successfully with your help and co-operation. Stevenage will in a short time become world famous — ( Laughter ). People from all over the world will come to Stevenage to see how we here in this country are building for the new way of life."
Despite all that jeering, in 1959, the Conservative government added several more new towns - Runcorn and Skelmersdale for Merseyside, and Dawley (later Telford) and Redditch for the West Midlands. Washington Tyne and Wear in the North East. Then we get to Harold Wilson’s Labour Government of the 1960s, who through the New Towns Act 1965 brought about - among other places - Milton Keynes. The new town par excellence.
However, since around 1980, the new town development corporation model has been on the wane. Overall, in the end, since the 2nd world war, we’ve created 22 new towns which are now home for just under 3 million people. So. Not too shabby. Albeit I’m not sure we quite achieved the Minister’s ambitions for Stevenage becoming world famous, but what do I know.
The pros of the new town movement? It can be a radical, creative, infrastructure-led programme for place-making that has transformed the face of the country - new towns provide homes and communities for millions of people. We need them.
The cons - well, Sir Frederick Gibberd said in an interview in 1982 (35 years after he created the new town of Harlow):
“People sometimes say to me, ‘You must get a terrific kick out of having been responsible for a huge thing like a new town,’ Well, I get a lot of misery out of it, in fact. I go around and think, ‘My god, that’s unbelievably bad, and it could have been so good.’”
The critiques of our 22 new towns are well known to lots you (full disclosure - I don’t actually agree with some of these critiques, but this is the standard list):
They’re soulless, place-less, sterile, anywhere-ville developments;
The buildings - in particular the housing - are ugly (not a word I approve of) and have not stood the test of time;
They’re too low density, and (far) too car-centric.
So that was then. What about now?
Will Labour’s plan work?
The short answer is: dunno. We don’t really know what the plan is yet. But we can agree on a few things:
Where? We will need to know from Angie’s taskforce ASAP how many new towns we’re talking about and where they’re going to be. Those issues are, to put it mildly, some pretty hot potatoes (see the Minister’s speech to the good people of Stevenage above). But even once that’s settled…
Legislation. We’re likely going to need some form of primary legislation to facilitate this fresh generation of new towns - that’ll take some time.
Land assembly. An obvious point. But, even with punchy CPO powers for development corporations, this could take years not months.
Infrastructure. It’ll obviously be critical that any new towns are infrastructure-led for them to work at all. How long before the roads, rails, broadband, hospitals, and everything else are ready to roll?
Planning. Remember that? These things will need planning permission. That can take a little time. How long does a normal scheme of 2000+ homes take to get from application being validated to the first home being completed? Almost 7 years. Of course, for a really large scheme, even getting to an application at all can take years not months. Remember, this stuff isn’t easy. Wherever the new towns are put, they will make lots of people very unhappy.
What, then are the odds of Angela’s ambition of new towns delivering homes within the next Parliament? Argh. I mean. I don’t want to be that guy. I really don’t. You know - Basildon was designated as a new town in 1948, and homes were being built 3 years later. But our system’s changed an awful lot since the 1950s. Maybe we can put it like this: completions in brand new towns within this next Parliament is a very, very, very long shot. That obviously doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try for new towns at all. Try we should. Try we must, I think.
We have a shortfall of well over 4 million homes. Take all the new towns we’ve built since 1950, add ‘em all up… under 3 million people live there. Which is to say: new towns can be hugely powerful, but they’re not close, not anywhere close, to being a full solution to our needs for housing and other kinds of development. And, to be fair, Labour aren’t selling it as one. E.g. the manifesto also talks about urban extensions, building in the “grey belt” (whatever that turns out to be) etc. etc. etc. We need new towns. We need urban extensions too. We need urban densification and regeneration, including regeneration of the new towns which aren’t so new anymore. We need it all, folks, and we need it urgently.
So whoever wins this week - God speed. If we’re welcoming in a new minister, I believe that person will find our industry - #planoraks united - charged with the creativity, moxy and determination to play a part in making change happen, and building a positive legacy for those who come next. I hope so, at any rate.
Don’t forget to vote, #planoraks. As if you would. And if you’re going to vote in person, don’t forget your ID. Next time I see you - perhaps the day after the election indeed - lots may be different. But one thing’s for sure: there’ll still be a lot of planning to get done. So - good luck out there. Stay well, #planoraks. And through these shifting sands, do your level best to #keeponplanning.
