There is a sensible, interesting , but incomplete article examining how to supply lots of new homes in England in yesterday’s Financial Times (22 October 2026, New towns project cut back in Burnham’s devolution push). Andy Burnham, ir warns , has different priorities when it comes to new homes and new towns than his predecessor Sir Keir Starmer. Burnham is worried about costs and is undecided about relying on. regional mayors or central government to provide the drive to build.
Dealing with costs first. Nothing he can do immediately do about a 40% increase on building costs and a plus 50% increase in fees and finance costs, unless he can one, rejoin the EU fast and two, stop the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East fast too. But he can make big savings on land costs, by acting fast, decisively and without delay-in other words in the budget next week. By announcing wholesale nationalisation of all development land and building sites (above a certain size, and unless they go into build by the general election), at current day open market value which is so low in many cases existing use value will exceed development value. This step immediately gives back to local councils control of where and when building will happen. Which local residents will like. And land owners will receive full value, measured by the market’s value today.
Second, dealing with the question, who has responsibility for delivery- local mayors/local development corporations/local councils/ government departments/ or private developers? As policy U-turns are fatal for deciding spatial choices and cause damaging local divisions, ie playground politics not civic responsibility, we need a delivery mechanism that can look, plan and deliver at least a generation ahead
In my opinion we also need local accountability, not central imposition. Snag is this may not always work where areas want to encourage new job growth. Local pride will re-ignite best in class attitudes. But in places like the Thames Valley it will be different. There local councils are spoilt by economic growth despite their negativity towards house building for decades. So locally accountable mayors in these areas will not take the lead government seems. . Some sort of strong incentives will be needed so the mayors can motivate residents who believe their dormitories are full up, into becoming welcoming local hosts. See blog dated 31 August 31, 2026, Regional mayors v. fear of change to understand how civic history plays out in reality.
The FT article says another option is to ignore central government commitment entirely and leave development purely to mayors. How does this work? To whom is the mayor accountable? What happens if the mayors wishes conflict with local councils wishes? To take a practical example, the Thames Valley needs a new city between now and for two generations ahead, as there is not one major city, with the exception of Reading around which all massive economic employ and housing growth can be clustered. Each region is unique. Each will need a unique governance solution. In the Thames Valley there five or six successful urban centres. They need one mayor for the entire Thames Valley who has the power and freedom to deliver government priorities.
Fortunately the wealth of the Thames Valley is such that it will not need subsidies in the future any more than in the past. It just needs a spatial plan that a mayor has the power to deliver without looking ahead policy U-turns every five years. The private sector will do the rest, as it has for fifty years.
Ian Campbell
23 October 2026.
