Chair of The New Towns Taskforce, Sir Michael Lyon’s about two weeks ago published an interesting LinkedIn post. He explained his thoughts about the recent Centre for Cities assessment of the mixed performance of different high streets. Sir Michael made good points. Not all high streets struggle; increased housing density in urban centres strengthens them; it improves local labour availability; a high street in difficulty signals a weak local economy; visitors are good news; if there is popular appeal extending beyond the retail offer it helps the centre. In my experience he is spot on. Which set me thinking afresh. Aspirations to build in cities are fine; indeed welcome. . But delivery within them is very, very tough. Which is why there is so much tat to be seen in so many towns and cities. Introducing council leadership to replace the tat is would be a blessing.
Posts in this blog try primarily to face the realities of putting lots of new homes in low density and rural areas. It is not enough. Importantly the Conservatives have already said they want the bulk of future homes to be in existing urban centres. So far as I recall Labour have said nothing on this point. It is a sensible argument. In utopia work places and homes are not far apart. But housing in urban areas will be impossible to deliver without abandoning free market totems.
Having spent a professional career as a development surveyor in one of the most prosperous regions (Thames Valley), towns (Reading) and dynamic periods (1960’s – 2010’s) specialising in the supply of new employment space (the demand could be taken for granted if the product ticked all the boxes) I say with confidence even in boom centres urban regeneration at scale is many times more difficult to deliver than building in the open countryside. In fact it is so difficult that in a period of four decades only two major mixed use major central areas regeneration schemes, in Reading and Bracknell were built.. Only small scale regeneration tinkering took place in other established centres, eg Slough, Swindon, Maidenhead, High Wycombe, Wokingham, Guildford, Wokingham and Basingstoke despite their strong economic bases. Why? Overwhelmingly the barriers were ownership complications. The surge of town business parks in the same era was other matter. Why? Simple: very few land ownership barriers. Business parks boomed as the high-tech revolution built momentum. They were nearly always built on undeveloped land on urban boundaries. Ownership was invariably in single, or max dual ownership. From a practical perspective more than two owners kills all redevelopment potential. The last multi-ownership urban renewal site my firm assembled was in the late 1970’s! After that time it became impossible to repeat without CPO powers. These were never available.
The idea of building lots of new homes in existing towns and cities has political appeal. But the reality is this. Site assembly to build new homes at scale without full, direct and controlling participation by local councils is impossible. Such sites cannot be assembled by the private sector except in rare circumstances. And over very long timeframes. . Local councils’ key contribution will not be financial. In high value areas this element is not a barrier. Instead councils will provide other crucial inputs. First of all the council must take the lead role with the masterplanners. Proactive thinking will be novel for them. Their spatial brief to the masterplanners will reflect the council’s long term policy priorities. It must also take into account market signals. Above all, the council will deliver the necessary planning approvals and compulsory purchase powers to support the private sector developers partners and existing land owners. To maintain the confidence of their electors and despite the council being a minority land owner in the event of conflicting priorities the councils wishes must prevail. To avoid endless wrangling private sector commercial priorities and public sector social and community priorities land use change will release, it will be necessary to create a national land service which helps local councils set-up and deliver these governance vehicles.
I will explain the role of the national land service. A very loose parallel is the National Health Service. Local councils deliver primary planning care. What will happen within their built environment; precisely where; and when. Through the national land service, central government will signal their support (an important green signal for investors) the entry meets national policy priorities, loosely the hospital delivery level. The NLS will have two principal functions. One, setting up and maintaining a national register of development land. The register will only list development land needed for building after the current cycle of local plans expire. Only local councils will have the power to apply to the NLS to place potential development sites on the register. Once registered the planning status of the site changes. In effect the location now has outline planning consent for large scale land use change. It will only be taken forward by the local council, together with their chosen development partner. Registration at the NLS also signals official support of the government for large scale change at that location. So registration tells neighbours that in 10+ years , without giving any detail, land use change will happen near to them. This transition period stops bight, and stops hope value.
The second function of the NLS will be to assist councils with putting in place statutory and legal agreements with investors, land owners, and professional consultants to enable the registered land to become part of the future land supply chain. It will assist councils struggling to become leaders of land use change in their areas. Due to the uncertainties of the detail, ie. the uncertainties of location and of the timing, hope value will not immediately take root. But as time passes this immunity will change. Wise councils will react appropriately, securing ownership control positions early if existing development control powers are insufficient to stifle hope value growth.
Can large scale city based new housing supply be delivered without pro-active, public sector leadership? The evidence says not. For example in the 30 year period 1978-2008 Thames Valley based chartered surveyors and development consultants Campbell Gordon on behalf of clients successfully initiated 17 new build employment projects.. 16 of the sites were purchased from one owner. One was bought from two owners. 6 of the projects were built on previously unbuilt land, and 9 were on land previously used for employment purposes. Whilst of very limited value, this research confirms the barriers to private sector led urban renewal and regeneration with new housing supply at its heart must be done with the active leadership of the local council. Their leadership, their planning and their CPO powers, linked with the area’s identification on the NLS register will become the essential catalysts to start the re-building process. Without this intervention, the sort of incentives that can now be offered will not overcome the land ownership blockages private sector promoters face. Which means Conservative hopes of building homes in urban areas at scale will not happen.
The New Towns Taskforce set-up by the Labour government and led by Sir Michael Lyon’s is due to publish its recommendations for the delivery of 10 new towns and urban extensions later this year. It already faces the contentious call: where exactly will the locations they favour be situated? Local residents in host locations will have their say. Of equal importance will be their recommendations on delivery. Will they rely on the existing private sector led system, built on the haphazard call for sites based method of choosing locations, or will they face reality? Local councils, not local land owners must decide where to, and where not to build? But to be credible they must also recommend a delivery system for their preferred locations which will work, in urban areas as well as in rural areas. Without it, investors will not be convinced. Local councils must be ready to step up to the plate. Doing so will validate their pleas for more devolution powers.
Ian Campbell
04 August 2025
