Learning from the old to inspire the new

The New Towns Taskforce: Report to government has now recommended the locations for 12 new towns. David Churchill, Partner at Carter Jonas, explores how history offers a clear guide to getting it right this time.

The strategic role of new towns

The concept of the ‘new town’ has always been an ambitious expression of the state’s power to shape growth. Post-war, it was a necessity: a means of tackling population displacement, overcrowding and poor housing by creating self-sufficient places from scratch. Today, the drivers are different – and arguably more complex – but the need for bold interventions is no less pressing.

In the local authorities in which the new towns are to be located, the announcement will inevitably generate headlines and familiar resistance. But to move the debate forward, we need to focus not on whether we should build new towns, but how.

History tells us that the new towns that flourished were those built with the right strategic frameworks. This means land assembly and delivery structures that give confidence to investors and clarity to communities. It means a robust planning system that balances local involvement with regional oversight. And above all, it means long-term political commitment. Without these fundamentals, new towns will remain little more than slogans.

Why new towns matter again

England’s first wave of new towns began in the 1940s and spanned three decades. In total, 21 settlements were delivered – from Harlow and Hemel Hempstead to Milton Keynes – housing more than 2.5 million people today. They remain one of the most successful planning experiments of the 20th century.

But attempts to replicate that success in recent decades have largely failed. The Urban Development Corporations of the 1980s were effective in regenerating parts of our inner cities, but they were never intended to build new places at scale. More recent initiatives, specifically Eco Towns and Garden Villages, have lacked the powers, scale or political support to succeed.

The government’s renewed appetite for new towns is welcome. But this cannot be a rebadging of past programmes. It requires serious commitment to strategic delivery and a long-term vision rooted in the reality of land, infrastructure and politics.

The critical role of Development Corporations

At the heart of the post-war success story were the Development Corporations. Backed by the 1946 New Towns Act, they had far-reaching powers to assemble land, grant planning consent, deliver infrastructure and manage delivery. Importantly, they operated outside traditional local government boundaries – freeing them from some of the short-term political pressures that hamper major development today.

The 2023 Levelling-Up and Regeneration Act revives and updates these powers. Local and combined authorities can now create locally-led Development Corporations, supported by land assembly tools such as Compulsory Purchase Orders (CPOs), Development Consent Orders (DCOs) and Special Development Orders (SDOs). These are not panaceas – but they provide the institutional backbone needed to move from vision to delivery.

Where there is a clear delivery vehicle, private sector confidence follows. Development Corporations offer that clarity. Without them, new towns are more likely to falter at the planning stage or drift into piecemeal development.

Land assembly and the importance of scale

No single challenge looms larger than land. Sites must be large enough to support significant growth – the New Towns Task Force proposes a minimum of 10,000 homes – yet few such sites are available without intervention. Land assembly is difficult, slow and often contested. But to create proper communities with schools, employment, healthcare and transport, a minimum threshold of scale is essential.

England’s post-war new towns average populations of over 120,000 – ten times the minimum size of the current government’s ambitions. That scale underpinned the delivery of major infrastructure and real placemaking. Smaller settlements often struggle to achieve that, and risk becoming dormitory extensions rather than new towns in any meaningful sense.

Scale also supports long-term economic growth. Properly planned, new towns can diversify regional employment patterns, attract investment and improve productivity – but only if planned alongside infrastructure, not after it.

The case for strategic authorities

To underpin this approach, a stronger strategic planning framework is required. The abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies in 2010 created a vacuum in strategic coordination. Since then, local plans have been the primary means of planning for growth – but localism alone cannot resolve the cross-boundary issues that new towns entail.

The 2024 English Devolution White Paper, now embodied in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, proposes 33 new single-tier strategic authorities, each with a population of at least 500,000 and responsibility for housing, transport and infrastructure. These new authorities have the potential to rebalance the planning system – offering a more democratic alternative to regional planning, but one capable of thinking at the scale required for new towns.

Analysis by Carter Jonas (New Towns: Foundations, Futures & Finances) suggests that, when examined at the combined strategic authority level, the north-south divide becomes even more pronounced. Of the ten most suitable strategic authorities for new towns, seven are in the South East. This again highlights the need for government to take a proactive role in shaping and balancing the new towns programme.

Managing political risk

Delivering a new town takes decades. The original Development Corporations had average lifespans of 25-40 years. Against that backdrop, the suggestion that homes could be delivered on new town sites by 2029 looks overly optimistic.

Instead, we need to think in terms of phases. Some smaller settlements could come forward more quickly, helping to address short-term need. But the bigger new towns will require sustained political commitment over multiple parliaments. That means putting in place structures that endure and resisting the temptation to tinker with the framework at every spending review or reshuffle.

Private sector partners will only invest in long-term projects if they believe the strategic direction is fixed. Certainty is just as important as speed.

Conclusion: strategic frameworks, not soundbites

New towns are not a quick fix to the housing crisis. But done right, they are a powerful part of the solution. That means building at scale, in the right locations, with the right planning and delivery structures in place.

Development Corporations should play a central role, supported by the new strategic authorities and empowered by modern planning tools. Land assembly must be treated as a priority, with access to DCOs, SDOs and CPOs where necessary. And political leaders must show the long-term commitment required to turn these plans into places.

Crucially, new towns must be just one part of a wider strategy. Alongside them, we need sustained investment in urban regeneration, densification and strategic urban extensions.

The announcement of 12 new towns marks a welcome shift in ambition. But it is the strategic framework behind them that will determine whether they succeed. History has shown us how to do it and how not to do it: we have much to learn from.