TOP 10 KEY OPPORTUNITIES

1. Locations – the locations are robust and justified, clearly underpinned by extensive spatial and economic analysis. The report, and the subsequent government response, are significant steps forward and could help yield an additional 300,000 new homes for families in housing need.
2. Purpose – it is refreshing to see the government being crystal clear on the purpose of the new towns, namely to get more homes built quickly. That clear statement will help address the inevitable upcoming questions about jobs, the environment, politics, infrastructure etc. The commitment of government to quickly undertake the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) process and to set up a New Towns Unit to drive progress is also highly positive in backing up that purpose.
3. Socio-economic objectives appear to have been skilfully addressed. It is no surprise that the first three new communities in Leeds, Enfield and Tempsford have the potential to (a) support the regeneration of Leeds city centre, (b) provide thousands of new family homes to serve London, and (c) support major transport investments in the South East.
4. Funding – the clear statement that “the delivery of new towns will be backed by funding across the government’s housing programmes” significantly derisks the ‘investability’ and delivery prospects for all 12 schemes. The challenge now is for the 12 new delivery vehicles to rapidly clarify the what, the when, and the why, within their funding bids.
5. Ambition is front and centre of the Task Force’s work and Tempsford is but one example – a draft local plan allocation for 7,000 homes upgraded to 40,000 by the Task Force. This is an impressive ambition given the amount of transport investment in the area.
6. Alternatives – the Task Force and government both confirm that the list is not exhaustive. Over 100 submissions were made to the Task Force and around 70 were appraised in terms of viability. These included some superb schemes, which may not need government support and will continue to be promoted. It is fundamental that local planning authorities (LPAs) and landowners do not regard exclusion from the report as a government black mark.
7. The need for speed is prominent. Indeed the government hopes to break ground at Tempsford, Enfield and Leeds before 2029. And why not? Those schemes already benefit from huge amounts of positive developer activity. Perhaps the key requirement is to avoid unnecessary interference in order to ensure that new town designation does not slow existing policy and/or delivery momentum. 
8. Long-term stewardship is identified as a key requirement and even the most cursory assessment of post-war new towns validates that. However, achieving long-term stewardship confidence is neither easy nor inexpensive. Long-term governance vehicles will be needed.
9. Compulsory land acquisition seems likely to form a component of new town delivery in some locations and it is good that the government stresses that this will only happen where absolutely necessary and where agreement has broken down. It is vital that development schemes which contribute to (or at least do not prejudice) the new town objectives are not held back by unwarranted attempts to control the land market and phasing.
10. Placemaking is also emphasised given its importance. It will be vital that the delivery vehicles understand what works. Why is Milton Keynes so popular? Why does Houlton at Rugby look and feel so great? Why does Cramlington outperform the local housing market? But also why do some other new towns look and function less well?

TOP 10 QUESTIONS 

There remain unanswered issues and questions, which is unsurprising at this early stage. The following are perhaps 10 of the key ones:

1. Land value – what will it be, how will it be defined, and how will it influence land transactions? The narrative in some documents appears uncertain, referring to landowners not being compensated for any value associated with the prospect of planning permission. But many schemes are already long established and subject to local plan allocations which must be fairly reflected in their value.
2. Landowner engagement will be crucial. Landowners’ views cannot be swept aside; the reality is that they must be positively engaged from day one. Positive landowner collaboration and inclusion will be the difference between delivery and delay.
3. Local plans – how should they respond? As an example, the emerging Central Bedfordshire draft local plan envisages 7,000 new homes at Tempsford. The Task Force sensibly puts the potential much higher at 40,000 homes. How will that be resolved: plan withdrawal? Increased housing need? Removal of sound allocations elsewhere? Not an easy one for LPAs.
4. Governance of the process, as we enter local government reorganisation, will require careful handling. Who will prepare the required spatial development framework (SDF) – the Mayor? The LPA(s)? The Development Corporation? Careful collaboration will be crucial and further details will no doubt follow.
5. Strategic Environmental Assessment – have the inevitable delays from SEA been factored in? The SEA documentation for some of the new towns will inevitably be challenged legally, potentially causing 2-3 year delays. Is SEA necessary for every single scheme given the different stages they are at?
6. Community consultation will be crucial. Whilst fanfares at party conferences make great national headlines, local press reports are already referring to, among other things, “fury and disbelief” (Adlington), “no direct engagement” (Enfield), “local groups mobilising” (Heyford Park) and “parish leaders left in the dark”(Tempsford). The Secretary of State’s clear statement that opposition based on “we do not want it here” will not be the government’s test is highly reassuring, but the impact of local politics should not be underestimated. The demise of eco-towns and garden cities are unfortunate reference points.
7. What is Plan B? – whether it be SEA failure, legal difficulties, local politics, land assembly issues, or lack of funding, it seems likely/possible that one or more of the 12 schemes will fall by the wayside. What happens? Are there reserve schemes? Does the initiative get diluted? In terms of national politics, can we secure crucial cross-party support which will (a) avoid the initiative being dumped in 2030 and (b) increase the incentives to trigger major private sector investment.
8. Affordable housing at 40% seems a stretch in some cases, despite the Town and Country Planning Association response that this must be “a minimum”. The history of affordable housing delivery in central Manchester and Leeds, and the 10,000 new homes proposed for Plymouth city centre do not point towards 40% affordable housing delivery in those three locations. Elsewhere, a constrained funding pot may require choices between transport, environment or affordable housing investment. Especially for schemes already well-advanced in planning terms and with land control contracts between landowners and developers reflecting existing local plan policy. 
9. Housing need and local plans remain the elephants in the room. It boils down to a simple question which will require early clarification. Namely should local plan housing requirements be amended to incorporate the housing supply for new towns or should they not? London has already confirmed that Crews Hill will not require any changes to London Plan need or supply. In other places the answer may be different and early clarification, perhaps via the Interim Planning Policy recommended by the Task Force, will provide much-needed information.
10. Implementation – the preference for Development Corporations (DC) is sensible. However, they may not be required in cases where the scheme already has experienced developers in tow and a strong planning policy platform in place. Elsewhere, in multi-ownership locations, with more nascent delivery arrangements, a DC will obviously be invaluable, provided they incorporate capable CEOs and chairs to drive the required cross-sector collaboration and progress.

Further information

Contact Philip Barnes