The New Towns Taskforce report needs a lots of careful thought by experts. Rules me out! A quick overview of the two key barriers I see merit comment. Here is one comment, responding to the sensible recognition that new towns ought to own the land, during the delivery phase. Recommendation 22 says ‘Delivery bodies should ensure early certainty for landowners by setting out what value they can expect for their land’.
Fine, but far too fluffy. And the underlying pricing principle needs to be spelt out without delay, as landowners and their advisers will already be planning how to protect their commercial priorities. Time matters. What is more, laying stress on the underlying pricing principle which will determine the price paid for their land will, once clearly understood will far more likely be accepted by opposition political parties in Westminster as a fair way of proceeding with the acquisition of land by the state. Achieving this sort of buy-in by opposition parties will take the wind out of the sales of angry land owners, as impartial observers see they are being treated fairly. Controversial claims like ‘sequestration’ will not stick. Claims that they are not receiving full open market, including hope value, will not stick.
So the underlying principle which fixes the price they get for their land is simple- it is open market value, including existing hope value if any, in place when their land is first publicly identified by the CPO buyer. What does this mean? For the landowner ( which includes owners of legal interests which do not include the freehold) they get two bites at the hope value cherry. Bite (1) is existing hope value in place before any scheme exists. Bite (2) is a share of hope value which is created by the body which buys the land ( or their appropriate partners). So it follows that from the buyers point of view, to maximise their land value capture outcome buyers must act with foresight and care. What this means is they must maintain maximum time and location uncertainty until they are ready to go public with their plans.
Is this simply too difficult to do for local councils? I do not know. It will be essential for local councils in order to remove from landowners all justifications for claiming bite 2 hope value that they as the acquiring body must pay close attention at every step of spatial decision taking to how their announcements will impact value to be paid.
There is a simpler way. Which I have put forward in earlier blogs. It is for local councils, together with the government to set up a central government register of ‘development sites’ which will be required 10+ years ahead. Ten plus years ahead is about the timescale after which hope value will not take root. So land which is placed on the register will not be used for development until after 2035. In other words the potential for the land concerned to be vested with additional value, ie. with hope value, is then nil. The benchmark is the open market, which is the independent endorsement that validates the price paid. It means decisions about spatial building policies can take place without councils looking over their shoulder, provided they are planning at least ten or more years ahead.
Ian Campbell
31 October 2025
