Towards the end of October (28 October) there will be a Budget. In addition there will be a white paper setting out government plans for a fiscal devolution roadmap, including the alignment of public service boundaries (see Rewiring the State-Cabinet Statement, 31 July 2026). . This news may sound dry. Quite the opposite. So read on and you will see why. But first it will help to see an example of how our spatail outlook may after years of myopia be about to evolve..The spatial examples below are intended to graphically illustrate the necessary scale of change coming to us if the Statement’s hopes are to be realised. Until very recently, following many years close attention, I thought the scale of radical spatial change needed, to prevent our nation’s suicide mission, ie. no you can’t build it here, inflicted by Theresa Villiers 50+ backbench Tory MPs rebellion in 2022, remained in the ascendant. But maybe not. As the first clue, look at what happened recently in Hertsmere Borough Council; a location in the heart of metropolitan nimbyland. Compare it with the Surrey Heath decision in May on the smaller green belt site open countryside site at Windlesham, (Dye is cast, blog dated 13 July); and analysis (in The politics of local change, blog dated 19 July).
On 85 acres of greenbelt land long side the South Mimms service station, near Potters Bar on the M25 the Labour and Liberal Democrat coalition council recently gave consent for a massive new cloud and AI data centre of 2 million square feet (see BBC News,, England, Tom Edwards, Environment correspondent). Why did this radical shift in local spatial policy happen? The council leader, Jeremy Newmark is, according to Edwards unapologetic. ‘It’s about ensuring this borough is benefiting from the country’s digital future. It’s about us ensuring we are playing our role in the national growth mission. ……It’s always going to be a balancing act. In this case we have made a judgement call and that’s what leadership is about’. Now you may have a wry smile, thinking about the local Conservative councillors reaction. So I looked it up on ChatGPT. Only one of the eleven councillors on the committee voted against the decision! Three Conservative councillors voted in favour. For context it is worth noting that the current political composition is 15 Conservatives, 11 Labour, 7 Liberal Democrats, 4 Independents and 2 Reform. But there is more. I thought that surely there must a Conservative led Hertsmere opposition campaign in place? Well if there is ChatGPT cannot find it. Does this mean sense is returning to the spatial debate? There will be a balance between jobs and homes and open space? Upset locals, whose narrow, understandable but misguided open space passions have dominated the spatial debate for more than a generation are now on retreat? Are they? Or is this decision simply a Labour led council, who traditionally favour jobs over homes making a maverick choice? If so, where are the Tories who traditionally prioritise open space? Once Westminster’s MPs return to the House next month it will be revealing to see how all the opposition parties respond to the government’s white paper. Hertsmere’s policy shift is a litmus test.
Because this issue, where to build and where not to build is difficult for some, like me, without a map, or a plan, or a national spatial strategy to see.. To weigh up competing claims, about where to build, or not build I need an example on the ground, to make comparisons. . Spatial choices about where to build do not start with a blank canvass. There are things already there on the ground, wherever you look. So the example that follows may not be perfect, but it starts from reality. And therefore is a live, real world example of what the White paper policies could mean in the Thames Valley if the proposed policies in it are going to be delivered between now and 2050. Or more likely between now and 2080.
Some context is also relevant, as the foundations of sustainable, ie. live planning delivery in popular places are long term. Based upon research I conducted in 1968, a decade later in 1978 I set up a new Thames Valley based consultancy, to service the new employment market that was emerging on the horizon. This is what Bruce Kinlock, at the time the property correspondent said in The Daily Telegraph on 7 November 1978 “A new company of agents -Campbell Gordon- is planning to specialise in office campus and science based complexes in the so called. ‘silicon chip triangle’, the area to the west of Heathrow and out to Reading. By then the need for new types of commercial space was emerging. . By then the need for new homes too was less obvious. A average house at the time cost less than £20,000. Ten years later, the need for new homes, to match the fast employment growth in the Thames Valley was far clearer; houses prices by around 1980 having tripled to nearer £60,000.
In 1990 Campbell Gordon published ‘Growth v. Quality of Life, a Thames Valley solution’ putting forward a proposal to rebalance the jobs=good, but homes=bad .conflict already underway. Because the division was not going away. . Past growth and future growth-will continue to be driven by (1) proximity to London; (2) travel times to London and Heathrow; (3) availability of skilled labour , and (4) proximity to loads of lovely countryside and rural villages west of London.
Your opinion, and my opinion about the impact of these desires on England’s quintessential hedge-rowed open country is irrelevant. These primeval, homing urges of tomorrow’s generation of entrepreneurs and their partners are what has, and what will continue to drive growth in rural areas. . Used to build national prosperity these forces are a wonderful opportunity for economic growth.
But most local authorities in the Thames Valley think their local area is full-up. The widely held view is that not many new homes can be built without destroying what is special about their locality. After decades of haphazard, ‘call for sites’ led spatial building, it is a view I endorse. This thinking explains the aspirations behind the publication of Growth v Quality of Life in 1990. Unfortunately not one local council had a long term, generational interest in the future, and therefore none in supporting a new Thames Valley community. This widespread local authority led myopia dominated the spatial thinking of most Thames Valley local plans through the last decade.
Why is this history relevant today, particularly after publication of the Cabinet statement on the 31st July? Because the Thames Valley continues to have a major spatial problem. Where to build? Fortunately there is a solution if the Thames Valley takes advantage of the new devolution powers now on offer by the new Burnham government.
The solution is to build Forest City (2) within a triangle roughly defined as south of Reading; (junction 11, M4 Motorway); north of Basingstoke (junction 5, Hook, M3); and the Blackwater Valley (junction 4A, Fleet, M3). This very large triangle of land is the nearest large area of unprotected land west of London. What is Forest City (1)? It is an unofficial proposal by two far-sighted individuals to promote the building of a new town of one million people east of Cambridge. The idea is good. Whether the location chosen is right can only be decided by masterplanners. It is a protype for the Thames Valley, which already desperately needs the homes following a generation of severe supply constraints, and to provide the additional capacity needed for new growth to rebuild our nation’s economic base.
The location starts with a good menu and a bad menu. The bad menu is opposition from the MoD to any attempts to build in their Burghfield and Aldermarston nuclear risk zones, and also the distance the overspill homes must be exported from the Thames Valley corridor -typically half an hour. The good menu is most of this land is neither greenbelt or AONB. Both motorway corridors are already linked by road and rail and have good rail connections into London (Elisabeth line at Reading station, and fast trains at Basingstoke station). The entire area will also have fast road links to Heathrow and good links to Gatwick.
Existing residents in host locations will have good reason to be concerned. Whilst the nation’s needs must once again become paramount, the legitimate concerns of existing residents, who may suffer blight on a comprehensive scale must be generously treated at individual household level, whilst their community leaders must see, at civic level they and their areas futures residents will become beneficiaries, . One source of funding will be land value capture on a wide scale. Another form of funding will be levies on ratepayers whose responsibility for housing the next generation is being exported to their neighbours. IMO based on decades of development experience in high value locations I do not expect the Treasury to be out of pocket. Look at the financial history of Milton Keynes as an example.
To sum up, Forest City (2) shows how the Thames Valley can plan ahead. It shows how the Thames Valley can re-establish its place as the most prosperous region outside London. The opportunities this potential creates are rare and needs to be captured. To do so, and use the massive enhancement of land values, already created by the community and once again paid back to the community, the vision needs local, shrewd and far sighted leadership. It needs Thames Valley local authorities to cease political point scoring, and work together, using the bank of time, to provide their residents and also our nation with an exciting and prosperous future. I now see my modest ideas in 1990 were not ambitious. Led by local councils, following a long term, consistent spatial policy, there is the market’s energy and drive to do something quite unique in Readingstoke (Forest City 2).
Ian Campbell
13 August 2026
PS Nothing really changes? Here is a letter published in the Independent newspaper on 10 August 1991, 35 five years ago I wrote to the Editor, putting focus on these conflicts and their consequences. . It will be a tragedy if we continue to ignore reality.
Injustice of regional planning curbs
Sir, Your report that the Cabinet is divided over Michael Heseltine’s proposed planning curbs (5 August) is encouraging for those who believe his policy needs more careful thought. It is to be hoped that political survival will delay Mr Heseltine taking taking hasty decisions until the election.
The Cabinet’s rift in ideology is mirrored by the soul searching now taking place as Homes Counties review their structure plan policies.
Take Berkshire as an example. Recently an experienced county councillor warned that three-quarters of the people of Berkshire will be enraged at the proposals for growth there, which are now being examined as part of the Berkshire County Council structure plan review process. Pull up the drawbridge, man Berkshire’s battlements, is the motto of many.
The council’s new plan proposes to reduce the rate of house building by more than 40% in the next 15 years. This, despite the fact the population of Berkshire is expected to increase by more than 15% in the next two decades, and despite social factors ( an ageing population is one) that are increasing the demand for homes, and house prices above the level those on average incomes can afford.
The cut-backs will be good news for existing home owners when prices spiral, but rough justice on the next generation of first-time buyers, and those who cannot compete financially. It is they who will pay the penalty of the higher mortgages, as wealth is transferred from the have-nots, to the haves.
Defeat of inflation, is a key government policy. But Berkshire’s employment policies will add to inflation. Like other Home Counties west of London, Berkshire is proposing an absolute embargo on the release of any land for commercial uses for the next 15 years. Flexibility and efficiency, to meet future needs, are to be abandoned in (the) interest of preserving the leafy suburbs and dormitories from any change.
The county recognises that there is to be a balance between the number of jobs which will be on offer, and the labour supply available to fill them. Employers will bid up wages to attract staff into the area, thus adding into a new round of wage-led inflation; forcing up house prices further; and adding to congestion on the roads.
Are the conflicts for and against growth in the Home Counties intractable? They need long-term policies. A balance must be struck between the self interests of nimby lobbies, the have-nots, and the next generation. Although the regional approach was disliked by Margaret Thatcher, it is difficult to see any other way to achieve a proper balance.
Yours faithfully etc.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~ENDS~~~~~~~~~~~
