Francis Truss, Partner at Carter Jonas, explains why the next wave of large-scale settlements needs more than ambition.
The promise of a dozen new towns is one of the most eye-catching elements of the government’s housing agenda. The New Towns Taskforce, chaired by Sir Michael Lyons, has recommend its shortlist of sites, each set to deliver at least 10,000 homes, which has been approved by the government. It is an ambitious pledge, aimed at increasing supply, supporting economic growth and shaping balanced communities.
Carter Jonas has carried out a significant piece of research (New Towns: Foundations, Futures & Finances), looking at how the government’s aspirations can be delivered in planning terms. As our research shows, ambition alone is not enough and this is apparent in the history of new towns. The post-war new towns succeeded not because of political speeches or headline targets, but because of the structures set up to deliver them.
At their heart were development corporations – powerful institutions with considerable longevity (the Milton Keynes development corporation was not wound up until 1992, 25 years after its inception) that could assemble land, deliver infrastructure and sustain momentum through political and economic cycles. If the next generation of new towns is to thrive, development corporations – or an entity with similar powers – must once again be placed at the centre of delivery.
Why new towns matter again
The first wave of new towns, launched in 1946, housed millions and transformed the geography of post-war Britain. Places such as Milton Keynes, Harlow and Hemel Hempstead remain enduring examples of long-term planning at scale. They were not without their flaws, but they proved that ambitious developments could be delivered, even when conventional market delivery fell short.
Today’s drivers are different. Population displacement has given way to affordability crises, rising demand for social housing and a shortage land for housebuilding. Yet the need for strategic intervention is arguably greater. The country is not only failing to hit its housing target, but also struggling to provide the affordable homes required.
The critical role of development corporations
Sir Michael Lyons has rightly called development corporations the “most likely tool” for success. Unlike fragmented local planning processes, these bodies can offer long-term vision and the ability to act decisively. They can use compulsory purchase orders, development consent orders and other land assembly tools to de-risk scheme delivery for the private sector.
This is crucial because housebuilders alone cannot bear the risk, uncertainty and timeframes associated with the delivery of new towns. Their business model is typically designed for phased delivery and near-term returns, not the decades-long infrastructure programmes that such settlements demand. Expecting them to shoulder the upfront costs of transport links, utilities, schools and healthcare is unrealistic. Development corporations can provide an entity to make a cohesive case for co-ordinated public investment and access private funding to provide the certainty that private capital requires.
Land, scale and the economics of place
Land control is the most intractable problem in planning. Large, unconstrained sites capable of supporting 10,000 homes rarely emerge without intervention. Even when land can be assembled, the temptation is to deliver in piecemeal fashion, potentially undermining the comprehensive planning needed for schools, transport and employment hubs.
Here, scale matters. The post-war new towns averaged populations of around 120,000 – far larger than the minimum threshold now proposed. That scale justified major infrastructure and enabled genuine placemaking which can be difficult in smaller settlements risk.
Social housing and public value
Perhaps the strongest argument for development corporations lies in their potential to secure social value. Our acute shortage of affordable homes is felt most by local authorities and housing associations, whose waiting lists grow longer each year. New towns present an opportunity to delivery affordable housing in a way that many urban extensions struggle to.
A new town needs scale to be delivered at pace and high housing market absorption rates. Building at pace will mean tapping into pools of demand that are less sensitive than open market housing to economic ups and downs and have depth at the associated price point. Thus, affordable housing provision is critical to their success. The first development corporations embedded affordable housing requirements at the outset, using their control of land and infrastructure to shape delivery over decades. Today, the challenge is to ensure a balance of social rent, affordable rent, shared ownership and Build to Rent (BTR) within these new settlements – creating mixed communities rather than polarised markets.
The most obviously available tool for driving the delivery of greater affordable housing is the recent increase in Government expenditure/ grants to support the sector. While new towns don’t have a specific call on this support, development corporations (with the scale/ level of public sector involvement) have a real ability and case to help channel such funding into such schemes.
The case for strategic authorities
The reintroduction of development corporations must sit within a wider framework. New towns cross administrative boundaries, demand new transport corridors and require co-ordination with utilities and health providers. Local plans alone cannot achieve this.
The government’s proposed strategic authorities – single-tier bodies with responsibility for housing, infrastructure and transport – could provide the missing layer of accountability. Linking development corporations to these authorities would ensure that new towns are not isolated experiments, but part of coherent regional growth strategies.
Managing political risk
Delivering a new town is a 30-year project. That timeframe spans multiple parliaments, economic cycles and policy shifts. The temptation for ministers will be to over-promise and under-deliver, hoping to see spades in the ground by the next election. Yet rushing risks repeating the mistakes of recent initiatives, from Eco Towns to Garden Villages, which lacked powers, resources or political staying power.
Instead, success depends on creating institutions that endure. Development corporations are not immune to politics, but their statutory basis and long lifespan provide far more certainty than short-lived programmes. This is the consistency that institutional investors, housing associations and local partners need before they commit capital.
Structure before slogans
Twelve new towns will not solve the housing crisis, but they could form a vital part of the solution. Their success will depend less on where they are located than on how they are delivered. That means recognising that housebuilders cannot do it alone, that social housing must be integral, and that only strong delivery vehicles can sustain momentum across decades.
Development corporations, properly empowered and strategically aligned, are the answer. Without them, new towns risk becoming another cycle of aspiration and disappointment. With them, they can provide not only new homes but also the schools, transport, public spaces and affordable housing that define successful communities.
Images: Georg Eiermann/UnSplash
In related news:
Leave a Reply