There is a school of thought which says new towns, and large urban extensions, are not the right way to solve the homes crisis. Instead the focus must be on regeneration of urban centres. Critics say new towns are an out of date solution; not sustainable; because governments, not people decide; that they will destroy the economic foundation of nearby places; they need a generation to become viable; their inhabitants will be isolated and these towns cannot offer the lifestyle diversity the uncertainty of life demands.
Such concerns merit careful thought. Speaking as a non-planner and supporter of new towns and extensions with a history of market predictions, mostly in the Thames Valley and south east region, and the experience of age it is possible to look at these concerns within the context of time. A long time dimension helps in a sector which needs 30+ years to deliver lasting change.
1. One size for all will not work. Whilst, taking into account the level of residential land values, there is IMO no doubt that a new town or large at scale urban extension in the Thames Valley, for example, will be a singular success if the design releases the latent premium values. But the same conclusion may not be true in a low land value location.The people who will know are the local estate agents and chartered surveyors who have current and historic experience dealing with employers. They know the rents employers will pay. They know the yields investors will demand. They know how much houses will sell for in one location, and in another location. What is viable in each possible location is the test. If land values with consent to build do not cover building and infrastructure costs, then the economic case for a new town in that particular location fades.
2. There is in the south east a large latent demand for new employment land. Which if permitted in accessible high demand locations will in turn create demand for many more new homes. The current market chatter is about laboratory and battery production facility space. For example I vividly recall for many years there was a unsatisfied demand for out of town offices. The use classes order did not recognise the need. Eventually this was changed. Then we had hi-tech buildings and finally out of town offices. The national economy lost 15/20 years of employment growth as a result. The fear was recreating pre-war non-conforming industrial estates in new residential areas. Understandable but handled clumsily. In such areas the price of saying no is very high. Remember existing actors often have a vested interest in saying no: to perpetuate high values. Asking them their opinions can be confusing.
3. Will new towns suck out the viability of existing centres which are not far away? The risk exists if existing planning policies are too prescriptive within their existing spatial policies. Future employers and future employees do not get a vote. Only local residents do. As a result employment growth policies and above all their future locations are treated by planners as second class applicants. As future employers always have the option of setting up shop in another town or even another country this sort of ‘unwelcome’ behaviour by councils is extremely high risk. It has caused a lot of damage and loss in the recent past. It helps to look closely at international examples. Good and bad examples exist. Also remember putting sites together without local council support if the number of owners exceeds two is very hard. This barrier alone will deter most developers.
4. Design issues for new towns will become important when proposed locations are adopted. But there is an earlier layer of decision taking which comes before design, and comes immediately after spatial decisions are made. Which may help the local debate to take place on a more informed basis. These are what I call the foundational goals or targets. They include density, height, on site private car provision or not, materials (local vernacular or not). Connectivity etc, And above all who makes these decisions and when? Because as an advocate of value maximisation, being the measure of popular appeal, viability means this benchmark has to come high up in the priorities. The snag is an acute lack of examples. Poundbury is useful as commercially it is a success story for the Crown Estate in general and our new King in particular. He saw the opportunity long before most the property market. And fortunately as one owner he had all the land under his control. Putting local councils into his shoes will be a handy step forward. Think 30 and 60 years ahead, not 2 and 5. But I regret that his architect, Leon Krier, appointed in 1988, could not build his original design: higher density, mansion blocks urban street scene low car solution. But, I also see the risks of introducing this essentially urban residential thinking into a rural market. On the other hand this mould breaking risk existed in the 70’s but did not stop the first out of town business parks going ahead ten years later. It also helped many practitioners to understand the employment space revolution that was about to arrive by going and looking at the fast evolving employment space market in the USA. In the seventies and eighties I made several of these visits. They showed us how to break the mould and popular business parks are now the cornerstone of out of town employment growth.
5. Connectivity is a stand alone, but vital key issue. Is it time to stop designing residential projects around cars? Is it time to remove private cars entirely from new residential development? By doing so, would it make the houses, the apartments unsalable or unable to be let? Based on living more than 30 years in rural Surrey (100% car dependent) and more than 20 years in urban London (0% car dependent) I am absolutely confident that zero provision of private cars in the new generation of new towns in high demand areas like the south east will not stops residential sales or lettings. But there is one big proviso. Instead there must be credible, accessible and affordable alternative forms of public transport. And in addition there must be easily accessed provision for private car use, at a price, when residents see it makes sense. Making new towns and extensions highly accessible is possible.. Each location will need a bespoke solution. Is it new time, thinking one or two generations ahead to start planning for a magnetic levitation circular connection around London?
These points are not exhaustive, nor complete. But IMO suggest there is a case for new towns in many locations. In some locations viability tests may indicate they are not yet viable. The review suggests that if something dramatic happened, which alters values, in the future, this might change.
Ian Campbell
22 September 2025
