Labour’s ambition to solve the housing crisis depends on how ministers handle the delivery of new towns. William Nichols of Lanpro explains development consent orders (DCOs) are the only vehicle fit for purpose.
New towns are far more than housing: they are large-scale, mixed-use settlements which require infrastructure, jobs, health and education alongside affordable homes. As such, it is intended that they will be instrumental in unlocking supply, supporting economic growth, and ultimately fulfilling Labour’s manifesto pledge to develop 1.5 million homes before summer 2029.
The government must act decisively, which means choosing the right tools for the job.Increasingly, that tool is believed to be the DCO: in fact an Inside Housing headline in advance of the recent spending review called for, ‘A last push for the reclassification of housing as essential infrastructure’.
The legacy of national delivery
Our history of new towns points firmly in this direction, with the most successful examples delivered through national intervention and bespoke planning powers. From Stevenage (designated in 1946) through to Milton Keynes (1967), the post-war programme was enacted via New Towns Acts and administered by development corporations. These bodies were granted full planning powers outside the local authority system.
The contrast with more recent examples is striking. The twenty-first century, smaller settlements such as Northstowe and Welborne were brought forward via the local authority route, through the Town and Country Planning Act (TCPA) and local plans. Many have struggled to deliver some of the amenities that communities expect – Northstowe, for example, which achieved outline planning permission in 2014 and has had a population since early 2017, only recently gained a bus shelter and still has no shops.
This is not a criticism of local authority planners, many of whom are working very hard under extreme constraints. It is a reflection of their limited capacity – the skills shortages, political volatility and lack of resources that make delivery slow, fragmented and uncoordinated.
It’s also a reminder that to create the exemplar new town, with the physical and social infrastructure to match, requires something more than a series of planning permissions. It needs power, clarity and scale.
Why DCOs are the right tool now
That is why the DCO regime, which was originally created for nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPs), must now be embraced as the route to deliver new towns.
It provides a unified consent process that cuts across the usual patchwork of permissions. It gives the Secretary of State direct oversight, avoiding the paralysis that often follows local objections. It ensures structured engagement with consultees and the public from the start. And crucially, it comes with a defined timeline for decision-making.
For large-scale mixed-use schemes, the DCO has the capacity to do what local plans cannot: coordinate housing with transport, energy, schools and healthcare. It gives developers the certainty they need free of political cycles and changing priorities. Yes, it is front-loaded and demanding in terms of documentation, and it has not yet been tested on a major housing-led project. But its success in delivering national infrastructure (which at Lanpro we have seen time and time again in delivering energy projects) is evidence enough that it is the best vehicle available.
The local authority route – too slow, too uncertain
By contrast, the TCPA approach is weighed down by politics, process and the lack of statutory weight.
Local authority planning departments have been hollowed out. The specialist teams that once shaped new communities, such as architects, masterplanners and community liaison specialists, have mostly vanished. Even well-resourced councils struggle to keep local plans on track.
Furthermore, with the entire country moving towards a system of unitary authorities and elected mayors by 2027, the local planning landscape is in flux. In time, spatial development strategies will be part of the picture, but it’s ambitious to think they will include detailed new town proposals, particularly while the structures that support them are still forming.
Local politics is never easy, and perhaps now more than ever. It’s not known to support Labour’s flagship policy of addressing housing delivery, but the insurgent Reform party now controls nine councils and two mayoralties. From opposition to solar farms to opposition to building on the Green Belt, the party’s policies to date suggest that local obstructionism in the interests of populism, would be substantial.
The democratic argument – national vs local
Critics of the DCO route point to its limited local democratic accountability. That argument needs to be carefully unpacked.
The DCO process may bypass some elements of local decision-making, but it is not undemocratic. It is accountable to Parliament, operates under statutory rules, and involves structured consultation throughout. What’s more, Labour has a national mandate to significantly increase housing delivery, and new towns are part of that promise. On the basis of Labour’s 165 seat majority in Parliament, there is democratic legitimacy in choosing the process that stands the best chance of success.
A system that delivers, not delays
I have no doubt that the DCO regime, properly applied, is the best mechanism to deliver new towns at the pace and scale required.
At Lanpro we’ve seen it work time and time again for energy projects – even those crossing local authority borders. The same expertise and confidence can – and should – be brought to bear on large-scale, housing-led schemes.
This article was written by William Nichola, regional director at Lanpro
Images via Shutterstock and William Nichols
Other features:
Shared ownership deserves its place in labour’s housing agenda
Leave a Reply