New Towns: Laying the Foundations (Built Environment Committee Report)
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Gascoigne
That this House takes note of the Report from the Built Environment Committee New Towns: Laying the Foundations (2nd Report, HL Paper 183, Session 2024–26).
Lord Gascoigne (Con)
My Lords, before I begin, I say some words of thanks. First, I thank the 88 organisations and individuals who submitted written evidence, alongside the witnesses who appeared before the committee over 11 sessions. Secondly, I thank the team backstage: our excellent specialist adviser, Kelvin MacDonald; and the committee staff, comprising Dervish Mertcan, Emily Macpherson-Smith, Charlie Warner and Nick Boorer, who all kept the show on the road with exemplary calm. My thanks also go to our embassy staff and all those who hosted us in Copenhagen. I express my genuine and personal thanks to the Minister, her team and those in the department, who have shown deep respect to not only me but the committee and helped us on this issue and others.
Finally, and not least, I thank my colleagues on the committee, some of whom are here, not only for the invaluable support they have given me and the committee but for the fact that they have tolerated me throughout that period. They have steered us to what is, I think, a brilliant final report. I thank, if I may, Viscounts Hanworth and Younger. Their voices are missed in the committee and in this debate—particularly, for me, Viscount Younger, who was always incredibly supportive.
This is the committee’s first report of three—everyone will be delighted to know that—on new towns. Given the scale and ambition required to deliver new towns, we chose to split the inquiry into a series of modules. This has enabled us to take a more targeted and granular look at discrete elements of the overall programme, rather than trying to cram everything into a single tome. Since this first report was published in October last year, we have published our second report, on creating communities. Today, I will focus my remarks on the first report, but, worry not, at a future date we will talk about creating thriving communities. It is worth noting that our committee chose not to look at or comment on specific locations which the Government were already doing when we started our inquiry.
The report was produced by Members who looked carefully at the evidence and arrived at the same broad conclusion: this programme has huge potential but only if it is done properly. We approached the inquiry as a critical friend of the Government’s programme. We want it to succeed; indeed, that is precisely why we think it is our duty to say plainly where it is not yet on track. We would be failing in our duty to the Government and our fellow citizens if we did not hold the Government’s feet to the fire.
This is, after all, not the first time this country has set out to build new communities at scale. It is the latest chapter in a story that stretches back more than a century. The post-war new towns were, by any sensible measure, a considerable success, as the Minister can testify. They housed millions, opened up opportunity and showed what the Government could do when they combined ambition with organisation. But a good many attempts since then have been less glorious. Some never got properly off the drawing board, some delivered housing but not places, and some lacked warmth and coherence. This really is an opportunity to get it right this time.
The test of the Government on this agenda will be the towns they actually build and whether these are places in which people can live well, get around easily, find work, raise families and feel they belong. That is why the first report is about the foundations. Foundations are not the most glamorous, but they are crucial. I will start with the positives, as there are things that the Government have done in getting the ball rolling that deserve real credit.
The first is development corporations. We recommended that they should be the default delivery mechanism for new towns and large-scale settlements, and the Government have broadly agreed. They matter because they work. They are tried, tested and credible. They can assemble land, plan at scale and keep a steady hand on the tiller.
Secondly, some of the necessary legislative plumbing is now in place. The Government have moved beyond aspiration and into action. Crucially, compulsory purchase reform now includes the ability to remove hope value in the right circumstances. I know that this can be controversial, but it matters because if land values rise steeply on the expectation of future development, it becomes much harder to fund affordable housing, infrastructure and community benefit.
Thirdly, the wider devolution framework is moving towards powers for mayors and more tools to support infrastructure and regeneration. If these new towns are to succeed, they need to be tied into transport, economic strategy and local leadership. New towns simply cannot be dropped from the great administrative height of Whitehall and expected to land elegantly.
Fourthly, there has been welcome movement on patient capital. The National Housing Bank is a serious development. If this programme is to work, it needs long-term money that understands long-term returns.
Fifthly, the Government have established a new towns unit—a single front door to government—moving from broad intent to an actual process of consultation, assessment and site development.
So let me be clear: this is not a picture of total inertia. Quite a lot has happened and the Government should take credit for it. However, despite that progress there are still some serious gaps. We are two years on and the clock is ticking.
The first area is vision. We said in our report that the Government needed to retake control of the narrative. At the moment, I am not persuaded that the Government have yet supplied that vision in their own voice. Too much of the story still seems to be borrowed from the taskforce. People need to hear clearly and repeatedly what this is for. Is it about giving young families a realistic chance of a home? Is it about healthier places? Is it about joining up housing, growth and infrastructure? Is it about building communities that are greener, better connected and more affordable? Is it about creating and supporting tech centres?
Whatever the goal, whatever the mission, the Government should say so plainly, confidently and often. This should and can be a great national endeavour. It should be exciting, positive and upbeat and should be something we are proud of doing and talking about.
The second area is governance—or, as I say, “grip”. This is the gap that worries me the most, because until the Government get a real grip of the programme and own it, we are not convinced that it will ever happen. These are not five-year projects. They are not even 10-year projects. They are multi-decade undertakings.
We recommend two things: a genuinely independent central body to oversee the programme and proper cross-government leadership of sufficient seniority to hold it together over time. What we have instead is a unit within one department. I am sure that unit is useful, but a unit is not a commission, and it is certainly not a substitute for Cabinet-level leadership.
These are 60-year projects, yet at present they seem to rest heavily on the energy and commitment of a single Minister who has new towns listed as one of his 12 ministerial responsibilities. Admirable though that may be, and even with the support, dedication and passion of our own Minister, and others, to me it just does not feel enough. The vast scale of the task at hand means that it needs to be driven day in, day out, so that someone can bang the table—ideally, the Cabinet table.
Ultimately, this scheme requires the Treasury to play ball. It needs round-the-clock grip, not just to handle Whitehall but to engage local authorities and encourage the private sector and investment to help unblock issues that may arise. Our conclusion on this was blunt—because the evidence justified that bluntness —that without sustained government management and support, there is a strong likelihood of failure.
Thirdly, there is a question of the government ownership stake. We recommend that the Government should retain a small but effective ownership stake in each development corporation, because the evidence suggested that even a modest state stake could improve investor confidence and unlock cheaper longer-term borrowing. We saw this in Copenhagen—its model is not transferable in every detail, of course, but the principle was clear enough: a small public stake can create a great deal of confidence. So we appeal again, because it seems to be one of those rare policy levers that costs relatively little and achieves rather a lot in return.
The fourth is skills. We recommended that the abolition of level 7 apprenticeships for those over 21 be reversed, at least for the professions in the built and natural environment. It makes no sense to announce an ambitious programme such as this—not to mention the 1.5 million target—while quietly narrowing one of the routes into the professions needed to deliver it. Planners, surveyors, urban designers, environmental specialists and the many others on whom good development depends—we cannot just magic these people up overnight. They need training, routes in, and institutional support. The professional concern here is serious. Just when everyone agrees that the system needs more capacity, we are making it even harder for people to enter some of the very professions on which success depends.
Fifthly, there is money. Our committee asked for clarity on the financing mechanism. The Government have pointed to existing programmes, and those are welcome as far as they go; but existing programmes are not the same thing as a transparent, dedicated funding model designed around the realities of new towns: high up-front infrastructure costs, long time horizons, patient returns, land value capture, and proper stewardship. I am afraid too many of the answers in the government response amounted, in effect, to: “We will say more in the spring”. I think we have passed spring, so here is the chance.
There is one final point I want to make, because it goes to legitimacy. We said that the framework for community engagement should be set before sites were announced. That was not procedural fussiness. It was an acknowledgment of the obvious truth that people are more likely to trust a process if they believe they are part of it before the broad shape of events has already been settled. If people feel that consultation begins only once the machinery is already humming in the background, suspicion will grow; and once suspicion takes root, delivery gets slower, not faster.
I end with four requests of the Minister. First, is the Minister able to give the House a firm date for the full government response now that this consultation is over? Secondly, will the Government commit to leadership with genuine and real cross-government authority? Thirdly, will they reconsider the case for a small government ownership stake in each development corporation? Fourthly, will they, even at this stage, exempt the built and natural environment professions from the changes to level 7 apprenticeship funding?
We remain a critical friend of this programme. Get the vision right, the governance right, the skills right and the money right, and this generation of new towns could stand in comparison with the great achievements of the post-war era. Get them wrong, and we will not have built a new generation of communities at all. We will simply have extended a long and, alas, increasingly British tradition of promising much, consulting often and delivering less. We can do it.
I thank the Minister and all those who will take part in this debate, including my fellow committee members, and I look forward to all their contributions. I beg to move.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)
My Lords, this new town agenda is very exciting. It is a chance for us to create new, high-quality communities for the 21st century, where the quality of people’s lives will be boosted by their surroundings: places where people can live, work and play and, above all, be inspired. But this agenda needs to be driven. It needs dedication and a degree of government urgency, which seem to be currently lacking.
I am now convinced that success in politics is not so much about what you believe in and more about whether you are able to get things done. But such is the risk aversion within Whitehall and Westminster, that it is now only by exceptional enthusiasm and drive that you can achieve anything. So a forward-looking agenda such as this new town agenda needs inspirational leadership and the will to drive it forward. It is not a controversial agenda. Who can deny that we need new housing? Who can deny that we need well-built, carbon-neutral communities, surrounded by a renewed and biodiverse environment? Who can deny that we need communities that bring people together, provide a high percentage of affordable housing, and make people proud to live there? We need communities with the best health and education services, sports facilities, and places to meet and chat for all ages.
What do the Government need to do to make this happen? They have to commit leadership and inspiration to overcome local opposition—or, actually, to inspire such opposition to see the very real possibilities for a good life for their children or for themselves in their old age. The message is that high-quality design and well-built buildings with trees and green spaces might even be better than the farmland that they had before—and I speak as a farmer who loves our countryside.
If some of today’s voters do not get it, I point out that our committee recently conducted a school survey on new towns, and 900 children responded; that is the highest response rate the engagement team has ever had. I can report that if today’s voters are less than enthusiastic, tomorrow’s voters are hugely enthusiastic and have loads of ideas about creating communities fit for tomorrow.
Turning to the economics, I am afraid that, even in these stringent times, the Government have to commit money, either through investment or, preferably, by loan guarantees. The land value uplift and the initial sale of houses will not provide enough to get these inspirational schemes off the ground—although, after 20 to 30 years, the development corporation should be able to turn a surplus. I am afraid that the Treasury has to get involved, and, if PPP is the latest answer for translating vision into reality, go for it. It is not like previous PFI hospitals and so on, which were derided for lumbering future generations with debt. These new town projects will turn a profit. It is just the first 30 to 40 years that are difficult; everyone benefits, eventually.
More than the Treasury, the Government need to get all the departments on board. Before the first house can be sold, there have to be good medical services available, so that is the Department of Health; good educational services, schools and perhaps even a training college, so that is the DfE; good local transport that fits into national transport, so that is the DfT; and good police and fire services, so that is the Home Office. There also has to be a commitment from the private sector that it can provide the shops, pubs, cafés and restaurants that will make these places truly vibrant—that is the PPP bid. All this investment commitment has to be spelled out by our political leaders ASAP. It is not complicated; it just needs vision and commitment.
There is nothing in our report to frighten the horses—in fact, quite the opposite. Everything we say looks forward in a positive way, yet, in spite of this agenda being a manifesto commitment, two years after the election the Government’s response to our report was at best lukewarm. However, I am pleased to say that, in recent weeks, there has been a bit more spark coming out of the department, so let us hope that this develops into a veritable blaze of enthusiasm and drive.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, and my noble friend Lord Gascoigne. I pay credit to my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, for the work that they did in this committee and continue to do. It is very helpful. I share the view of my noble friend and regard myself very much as a friend of the New Towns Taskforce and the new towns programme, albeit occasionally a critical one, as the Minister knows well.
I remind noble Lords of my registered interests, particularly over the past decade as chair of the Cambridgeshire Development Forum. It is on Cambridgeshire that I want to focus for a couple of minutes. I was the Member of Parliament for South Cambridgeshire for 18 years and for the past decade I have been working in the development forum and continue to live in the area. Thirty years ago, we started building Cambourne on a greenfield site to the west of Cambridge. To put it all in context, in the Cambridge region we are building out Cambourne. If Cambourne North is in the local plan, which I expect it to be eventually, it will be 25,000 homes. We are building out Northstowe, which is anticipated to be 10,000-plus homes. We are building out Waterbeach, north of Cambridge, on the A10 between Cambridge and Ely, which is expected to be 11,000 homes. Last week, the Government, in the shape of Homes England and the Hill Group, secured the project for the build-out of Cambridge East, which people think of as Cambridge airfield, which will be more than 10,000 homes.
So we have our own new towns programme. None of these are in the Government’s new towns programme. Cambridgeshire is planning to deliver 55,000 homes through its own new settlements, without the benefit of the new towns programme in any formal sense. However, the Government are planning a development corporation. I look forward to a debate on the statutory instrument about that, and we will discuss it then.
We have learned a few things. First, in Cambourne, we are 30 years on but only now are we going to get east-west rail with a railway station. Secondly, at Northstowe, we learned the lesson that we needed some of that infrastructure. The Conservative county council built the guided busway and a Conservative Government built the A14 rebuild, but that did not mean that Northstowe happened when we expected it to and to the extent that we thought it would. If I had been standing here in 2007, I would have said, “In 10 years’ time, Northstowe will be established. It will have 2,500 homes and be planning to go to 10,000”. Ten years on from 2007, there were in fact no homes in Northstowe. Why? Because in October 2008 the market collapsed.
It is so important that, as my esteemed friend Oliver Letwin said in his review, we understand the central importance of markets and of ensuring that we respond to them, not least in where we locate new towns and where there is market demand and viability, and in the diversity of tenure in those towns, so that we can see these properties go into the market. It is only those market sales that are fundamentally going to fund the affordable and social housing that we want to be a significant part of this.
We have learned some of those lessons and they are being incorporated into the new towns programme, but we should not imagine that we are operating by looking back to 1945 and then imagining what we are going to do in 2026. No. We can see now in Cambridgeshire what the lessons are. Some of them have been painful ones, but we have none the less come through and are succeeding. I want the Government—we will have this debate another time—to recognise that Cambridgeshire is doing the things that the Government want it to and does not need the new towns programme to make it happen, but that we can learn from it in encouraging other places to do so.
I have two more points. First, yes, there should be development corporations, but in some places they should be mayoral development corporations with tax increment financing, as well as loans from Homes England and the Government. Secondly, when my noble friend’s committee comes to look at the future and community engagement, it should remember that it is the young people today—probably teenagers—who will be moving into many of these homes. Let us engage them too, not just the communities that already live there.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the Select Committee report, particularly its emphasis on an infrastructure-first approach, mandatory basic design standards and capturing land values. I welcome the overall direction set out in the Government’s consultation on the draft new towns programme and policy, particularly the emphasis on high-quality place-making, environmental sustainability and the integration of green infrastructure. However, I will press the Government to be bolder in three key areas. I apologise to the Minister for repeating points that I made during the Social Housing Bill, but a good story can take repetition. I declare my interest as chair of the Forestry Commission.
The first point on which I encourage the Government is that the scale of the new town programme presents a significant opportunity to embed trees and woods as fundamental components of place from the outset. Trees and woods are just as vital basic infrastructure as road, rail, schools and doctors’ surgeries. Trees reduce heat effect and promote nature-based solutions to flood risk, both within urban developments and surrounding them, by slowing the flow of water. They support biodiversity and measurably promote health and well-being. They fulfil a government commitment that there would be an accessible green space within 15 minutes’ walk for urban dwellers. They improve air quality, sequester carbon and promote community cohesion. If there were no trees, you would have to invent them.
Recent research has shown that where green infrastructure is introduced too late in the development process, opportunities are reduced and outcomes are less effective. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, talked about the Camborne development, and it absolutely embraced the concept of developing green spaces as part of its master plan right from the start. However, it is slightly unfortunate now that East West Rail will go straight through one of the major nature reserves created in that process. That also outlines the need for integrated and comprehensive master planning.
The use of trees and woods to help shape the layout and identity of a development needs to be part of landscape-led master planning and not retrofitted. There are already examples of good practice. The Marston Vale community forest, for example, has agreed with all its surrounding local authorities supplementary planning documents so all substantial developments will have at least the minimum level of tree canopy cover. I encourage the Government to think of that as something that they might make obligatory.
I also urge the Government to use the opportunity of the new towns programme to promote modern construction methods, particularly the Government’s timber and construction road map. The benefits of using wood in construction include replacing carbon-intensive steel and concrete, and locking up carbon for the entire life of the building in addition to the growth period of the tree. Timber is also a natural insulator. However, the Government also need to ensure that long-term and reliable signals are given to the timber growing and processing markets to ensure that as much timber used in construction as possible is produced here in the UK—80% is currently imported. There is a clear policy need there. We want local homes made with local timber providing local jobs.
Will the Minister ensure that recent announcements about fire safety for high-rise buildings do not inadvertently stifle wood-based houses that do not represent a fire risk if they are below three storeys? Some 91% of Scotland’s houses are timber-framed and I have not detected a higher level of house fires in Scotland, despite some of the other habits of the Scots—I can say that because I am one. Here in England, currently only 9% of homes are currently being built with timber.
I have one last point to make, if I may. The Select Committee called for a national spatial strategy and it is good that the land use framework has now been published for England. The approach to new town location needs to use the principles and practice of the land use framework, and the increasing wealth of data that underpins it, to help guide new town locations away from sensitive areas that are inappropriate and towards those most suited, using the whole range of the environmental, social and economic data. That is what a land use framework is for. It would be absolutely first class if the new towns’ planning and policy used that and acted as an exemplar for how a land use framework approach can work.
I know that there will be later comments on particular locations in the programme for the new homes, and I hope that the House will note that the reason for some of the sensitivities about some of the locations is that because a land use framework approach has not been used. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Redwood (Con)
My Lords, in 2004 the Labour Government were struggling with a shortage of homes and rising housing costs, so I offered some published advice on how, for example, they could initiate the construction of a new garden city by the Thames. I provisionally called it Thames Reach—it was in the Ebbsfleet area—as an example of how it would be easier to get consent to something bold and visionary which included infrastructure and formed complete communities than to just keep on adding piecemeal to existing communities who often did not like the stresses and strains that could create. It did not appeal to the then Labour Government, but the incoming Conservative Government later took other advice and decided on Ebbsfleet Garden City, and that is now well under way, with a development corporation to do it. I am very pleased they did it, and I think it is an example of what can be achieved.
Like others in this debate, I would like to see more passion, enthusiasm, urgency, force and development. The Government made a mighty promise to our country of 1.5 million houses in five years. The last Government were achieving around a million; they hit their targets. The Labour Opposition were quite right to say that they were not that stretching, and they came up with this stretching target. But I have got news for Ministers: two years in, they are miles off the pace. They will not even hit the pace of the outgoing Conservative Government. They need to make a big shift in what they are trying to achieve.
I would also like to hear more about how it can be based in some fine traditions of British development, and the formation of British communities. Someone I revere as one of our great entrepreneurial designers, Josiah Wedgwood, in some ways started it with above-average housing for the skilled workers that he recruited, trained, and wished to retain, in a village called Etruria. What a good idea to give them an improvement in living standards as part of the package.
That was carried on by other great entrepreneurs and rich families. Go and visit Bournville and Port Sunlight; are Ministers not proud of these? They were great achievements, with wonderful architecture, countryside in the development, people with gardens, sporting facilities that they could use, communal facilities that they could go and enjoy, a community that was built around a place of work that they were proud of, and that paid them decent wages and looked after them. This spread out more widely, as we have heard from others, in post-war developments, when you had the development of garden cities, with Welwyn and so forth taking off. So there is a tradition that we can build on, and the Government could show more passion, and a bit more continuity in British life, drawing on the things we can be proud of: how normal skilled workers got access to much better housing, started to live in communities and then went on to become owners, which is also extremely important for democratising capital and spreading wealth more widely.
The Government should also look at what works to break down resistance, because we have a paradox in public opinion in this country. The public think that we should build more houses, but most of the public do not think any of the houses should be built anywhere near them. I represented a constituency which always had one of the fastest rates of new house building foisted on it by successive Governments: the constituency of Wokingham. So successful was it that they kept having to break bits off from my constituency to form new ones, as we had so many people coming into the patch. I had to be the chief nimby, but you can see that I am not a nimby. We need to build houses. Construction is a great thing. But I did have to represent the perfectly genuine view that, if you took too many of our green fields and green gaps between settlements, you destroyed the community and changed the nature of the fabric of the local area. We were being asked to take too much, too quickly.
I also shared the view that we were not getting access to the funds and projects for the infrastructure. We were inviting people in when there was not electricity, water, enough pipes to take the dirty water away, or enough drained land, so the new houses flooded almost as soon as people moved into them. It was a disgrace that we did not plan it properly.
So I urge the Government to put more emphasis on new cities and towns, to accept the conclusions of the report that you plan them in advance and, above all, that you put the facilities in first.
Lord Herbert of South Downs (Con)
My Lords, I join others in paying tribute to my noble friend Lord Gascoigne for his report. I recognise the need for new homes, and the role that new settlements can play in that provision. The question, of course, is where those new settlements should be located, and on what scale.
I must declare not only the interest which I have placed in the register—that I am chairman and have other positions in the Countryside Alliance—but also that I live near Newmarket, on the edge of a proposed new development on the east Cambridgeshire/west Suffolk border. My views, therefore, may be discounted because I have an obvious interest and concern, but I hope to make a case against this proposed settlement on its merits.
It is called Forest City, an oxymoron reminiscent of Shakespeare’s “Sweet sorrow” or Milton’s “Darkness visible”. It is a privately promoted scheme which first emerged, to general astonishment, last year. It is not a new town; it is a city which would apparently comprise 400,000 homes across 45,000 acres, and that scale is extraordinary. It is twice the size of Bristol with about the size of Birmingham’s population, itself the second largest city in the country. It is a larger city than Manchester and would be one of the most significant urban developments in modern British history. It is more than three times the size of the largest new town, Milton Keynes; five times the size of the second largest, Telford; and—I am sure of interest to the Minister—10 times bigger than Stevenage and 20 times bigger than Welwyn Garden City.
It is located entirely on beautiful countryside in the Stour valley—countryside which I would argue merits protection in its own right—and is in stark contrast to the kind of lower-grade or degraded countryside, or even areas of green belt that are degraded, which we should not be worried about in protecting beautiful countryside. Significantly, this is also grade 2 farmland. The Government’s own Land Use Framework for England says that its analysis
“aims to reduce trade-offs by avoiding land use change on our best agricultural land”.
That reflects the National Planning Policy Framework, which directs development away from the best and most versatile agricultural land, including grade 2 land.
This proposal sits alongside—directly proximate to—the development which my noble friend Lord Lansley already described: an increase of 50,000 homes in Cambridge that would double its size. On one side of the A11, in the Oxford-Cambridge corridor—your Lordships can see the logic in this—there would be a massive new development and then on the east side, in entirely open countryside, not on the Oxford-Cambridge corridor, there would be another which would completely dwarf it. The proposal seems confused about whether it is a potentially complementary scheme or one which is an alternative.
This area of the country, Cambridgeshire, is water stressed. It is one of the driest areas of the country. Where would the water come from? The scheme’s promoters say that there would be a cost in providing it of £4.3 billion. Where would the transport infrastructure be funded from? The scheme’s promoters say that roads, railway, et cetera would cost some £16 billion—there is no proper railway connection to this development. The local Member of Parliament, Nick Timothy, estimates the infrastructure costs alone as some £60 billion and the state subsidy required to build this development as between £80 billion and £110 billion, because there is a proposal that the housing would be all affordable and that the plan would eliminate land value receipts, which normally fund roads, schools and hospitals. What that suggests is that this proposal is pie in the sky.
There may be an attractive brochure with pictures of beavers and bison, people swimming in lakes, and gobbledygook such as “symbiotic mobility” and “synchromodality”. There may be doublespeak about villages being integrated in the urban fabric of the city, but the truth is that there will be concrete where there was countryside, highways where there were hedgerows and more housing where there are hamlets. This is a utopian delusion. It is not a serious proposal, but the effect on the local community of promoting it is serious, because it creates anxiety and property blight. Of course, it also has an effect on the existing proposed development nearby in Cambridgeshire.
The Government have said that they will consider any reasonable alternatives to the recommended locations of their new towns. I note from the Financial Times on 29 May that the Government said that they had received the proposal that I am referring to and that they were reviewing it. I would encourage the Government to rule out this absurd proposal as soon as possible to eliminate the tremendous uncertainty that is created by it, to recognise that it is a folly and not a serious or sensible proposal, but one that is creating enormous worry to a huge number of local residents.
Baroness Andrews (Lab)
My Lords, this is a very welcome debate not only because it is the opportunity to discuss our first report of the Built Environment Committee, but also because it is turning into a very interesting debate in all manner of ways. I pay tribute to our excellent chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, who is extremely enthusiastic, focused and gets the best out of witnesses. He said, quite rightly, that from the start the committee recognised that we were dealing with a very big idea when we addressed new towns: an idea that needed big presence and big energy but required more than a single report and a deep dive. I will focus on a few key issues that illuminate why we have come to our conclusions. The report was innovative, but it also had quite an unusual context. It was modular but it was also very dynamic, because policy was being made by the taskforce while we were doing our work. When the list of sites was revealed, it was good to see that the committee and the taskforce shared so many assumptions about the power of place-making.
A second characteristic was that new towns are sui generis. They take decades to deliver. Ministers are very lucky to see spades in the ground, but they depend on the keenest foresight, whether about energy or food or nature security or extreme weather. The watchword that runs through this is “stewardship”, and therefore development corporations are the right vehicles. Mayoral development corporations will be tremendously useful and have great potential, and they have the capacity to be responsive and flexible and far-sighted as the realities change.
Finally, it was good to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, said: this is indeed policy embedded in living history, because the reality of the post-war vision is ever before us. People are still living in those settings. There was a certain wistfulness in our committee that we did not have the heroic vision and the post-war imperatives of rehousing, which were profoundly necessary but also popular. They came with the patient capital investment that paid off, and we make the same case under different conditions, because our housing emergency cannot be encapsulated easily in a single vision, although that is what we called for. It has a dual purpose: addressing our structural housing shortage and unlocking growth. Both are essential, but how do they relate to each other? Where is the novelty? Where is the innovation going to come from?
The challenge is even greater because we are in the foothills of our own industrial revolution, more unpredictable than those that have shaped our world. The uncertainty is compounded by very different financial conditions, labour markets, skill needs and changes in demography. All of that affects housing aspiration and provision. The new towns sit alongside massive new investment in social housing and are faced with all the familiar problems that frustrate every development in the country.
I have two questions for the Minister. Can she say something this evening on the contribution that new towns will make to the overall housing targets? There is still a bit of confusion about that. Can she bring us up to speed with the work of Homes England and the National Housing Bank, because they are so critical to getting things done?
On changes about national mood, people rightly expect to be involved in decisions about their future; they were not in that frame of mind in 1947. It makes a single conversation about new towns and their purpose more difficult and more contentious. Seeing is believing, but the work of the taskforce has been under the radar, and it means the field is wide open to vocal opposition—hence our insistence that there must be a bigger voice and greater visibility to bring the credibility and energy that they demand.
We can do it, because there are new tools and new opportunities. Place-making can bring consciously together landscape, character, sustainability, infrastructure and quality of life. Many of our recommendations audit the unique opportunities that new towns present to think creatively, with private and communal space, conservation, connectivity, integrated services, community ownership, design codes and innovative funding. Those factors will create the new models for the future.
In evidence to the committee, the Minister was a formidable advocate for new towns, and every Minister who came before us was very focused—and the taskforce is extremely impressive. But our final, substantive conclusion is that something above and beyond is needed if the programme is to achieve momentum and public confidence. In short, we think there needs to be a bigger, bolder, simpler story told about the new towns. I am afraid that I am going to use the word “vision”. It is easy to be sceptical, but we need something that captures desire as well as imagination. It does nothing less than shine a clear light on the nation’s hopes for the next generation, giving security and opportunity in housing and jobs. It requires commanding leadership, which is why we suggest a single, powerful voice, a Cabinet Minister with this as their sole priority, and not an internal unit but a cross-government agency with power to advise and pull heads together and deliver. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Lord Doyle (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Andrews and so many other noble Lords in this debate. I, too, pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, and the Built Environment Committee for making today’s debate possible. Its report is essential reading for all of us who want to see the Government’s promise of a new generation of new towns delivered, because that commitment to housebuilding in general, and new towns in particular, is both urgent and essential.
I will use my time today to focus on one of the new proposed town locations, that of Tempsford. It is in a part of Bedfordshire that I know well, having been born just down the road in Great Barford. Noble Lords will be forgiven if they are not immediately able to find Tempsford on a map, but its role in the Second World War, revealed in the recent opening of the archives, means that it certainly deserves to be better known. Indeed, the noted local historian Bernard O’Connor has described RAF Tempsford as “Churchill’s most secret airfield”. Between 1942 and 1945, the Special Operations Executive, along with RAF’s 138 and 161 special duties squadrons, operated from Tempsford. It was the primary departure point for hundreds of secret agents and for supplies for resistance movements across occupied Europe. It is particularly notable how many of those agents were women who, like those at nearby Bletchley Park, were unable to tell their own stories, so we should do so now.
Today, Tempsford finds itself at a crucial intersection of future road and rail development to support the Oxford-Cambridge corridor, making it the flagship growth corridor site. It would be a town of around 100,000 people, anchored in a new railway station connected to all points of the compass. As the New Towns Task Force said, it is “unique opportunity” and a
“standalone new town in Tempsford provides an opportunity for exemplar development that could provide excellent housing and employment opportunities for people in the region”.
The Government have said that they want to have at least three of these new towns under way by the time of the next election. Meeting that target, as has already been said, will require a level of co-ordination that, frankly, government is not always used to across so many different disciplines: rail, flood mitigation, utilities, land assembly and master planning. There is a traditional government approach that seems to insist on doing everything sequentially rather than simultaneously. I am afraid that I do not believe that we have time for such an approach. To that end, could the Minister please update the House on what progress has been made on land assembly for this project?
As mentioned, it is right that the new rail station is the anchor to this new town. It is in a unique position, connecting the millions of people who live along the east coast main line to new, exciting opportunities provided by the east-west rail line. It is where scientists from Cambridge will train change trains to meet investors in Leeds, or where families travelling from Edinburgh can connect to visit Universal’s United Kingdom Resort just down the road. Last week, the Government announced very welcome investment for the Wixams railway station to support Universal’s project. Can the Minister update the House on when we might be able to get a similar announcement for Tempsford railway station? There has been some suggestion that, on current plans, work would not start until 2030.
For Tempsford and other 21st-century new towns to be delivered, this Government need to be as bold and decisive as their post-war 1945 predecessor. I have no doubt that Ministers embrace that challenge. I simply urge the Government to hear that the clock is ticking, move at speed and learn the lessons of past Governments’ successes and failures, from London 2012 to HS2. We know what works: publish a single delivery plan, with one named senior responsible owner; align every workstream on one timetable; and confirm the delivery vehicle and early funding. A new town cannot be built by rail planners, flood engineers and landowners all working to different speeds, plans and managers. New towns such as Tempsford need one delivery body, one timetable and one accountable Minister to grip it.
In conclusion, the committee describes itself as a “critical friend” to the new towns programme. I look forward to following its ongoing work and to more debates such as this, because we need this work to succeed. The potential is huge and exciting. Let us get going with this most strategically important site and, in doing so, we can honour the legacy of legendary female secret agents, such as Vera Leigh, Violette Szabo and Noor Inayat Khan, in the names of the glorious parks and boulevards of the new Tempsford. This project can be so much more than simply new homes; Tempsford new town can be at the frontier of an ambitious, better-connected, future-facing Britain.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I must first declare my interest as a councillor in central Bedfordshire, which is the location of two of the new towns: Tempsford and a large chunk of the extension to Milton Keynes. Following the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, I must also declare it is the location of the Forest of Marston Vale. I thank my noble friend Lord Gascoigne and the committee for an excellent—and very much a foundation—report. I am aware that some of the comments made today will probably be covered in future reports.
I have some experience of new towns, not only Milton Keynes but Washington, where my father was from. When I first used to visit it as a child to see my grandmother, it was a small pit village. Now that village and several of the other small pit villages are transformed into a new town of 70,000 people, which I saw grow up through my childhood. The Government are proposing several new towns; I do not intend to comment on the ones in central Bedfordshire, although I would describe many as urban extensions rather than new towns, but I want to reflect on the principles of good urban planning. As the report makes clear, we need a compelling vision. We need to define a clear purpose and we need infrastructure first—not just roads, but utilities and soft water—and that means getting a whole group of different entities to work together.
That is very important, but I want to raise a couple of things that are also important. First, new towns should have a heart, a soul and a purpose. In our ancient cities, you can often think of that as a cathedral, so what will be the centre of a new town? What will give it its purpose? A town centre that works is not just about shopping; it is about community and where people come together. That gives it its identity. Secondly, the new towns should not just be urban commuter dormitories. They need to be living places where people can sleep, but where they also have the opportunity for work and for leisure—I recognise that there will still be commuting.
These days, we talk often about these wonderful towns. Milton Keynes is on my doorstep, but we are not going to be able to build new towns with that low a density in the south-east because there physically is not the space. We need to think about the density of new towns. That means a different sort of new town, not one based on road and car, but based much more on public transport, walking and cycling. That requires much higher densities. When I go to Europe, I see towns that are successful because the coffee shop has 12 apartments above it and the shop has apartments above it. People do not need to get into the car to go to the town centre. I have a curious question that I keep asking people: why is it not economic to build underground car parks in town centres in the UK whereas it seems to work pretty much everywhere else in Europe?
The Lord, Lord Lansley, mentioned Cambourne, where I did a fair amount of door knocking in the recent elections. It is a wonderful housing estate, but I would not class it as a town. It did not have a proper town centre; it is something that evolved—I hope the noble Lord will forgive me on that. We need to, and can do, better.
Several noble Lords mentioned design. I raise the fact that our population is changing. When we designed new towns in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s, it was for a much younger, much more family-orientated population. We have shifted. We have a much older population, and we will need to deal with many more singles and couples, not large families, and that is a different sort of town.
A number of noble Lords mentioned funding. If we are going to deliver infrastructure up front, we need to do that, but it is not just about cash flow. Realising the land value will not be as simple as it used to be in the past because many of these areas already have embedded value that we need to think about.
We talked about development corporations in the report, and I am glad that a number of noble Lords raised whether we can have mayoral or council-led development corporations, because if it is just in one area, that is a potential other avenue that we should look at.
A number of noble Lords raised leadership and speed. Clearly, many of us fear that this will spend more time in the planning than in getting bricks on the ground. If we are going to do this, we need real leadership and we need to get on with it. Again, I refer to Central Bedfordshire: Wixams station is going to be delivered 20 years after it was originally envisaged. That is not good enough for these new towns.
Finally, we need to consider the wider area. New towns can have a major impact on the other settlements nearby and could denude them, their town centres and so forth. We need to reflect on that as well. With that, I welcome my noble friend Lady O’Neill of Bexley to the Front Bench.
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for this very helpful debate and to the Built Environment Committee for its extensive work behind this second report on new towns. I thank my noble friend Lord Gascoigne for his chairmanship of the committee and the insights he has provided, and all the speakers in the debate.
His Majesty’s loyal Opposition of course support the delivery of new homes, especially for young people, and we recognise the Government’s manifesto commitment to build new towns. In 2019, we promised to build 1 million new homes, and we did, on time and as promised by 2024, and there was a little thing called a pandemic in the middle. However, we want to ensure new homes are built in the right places and that housing delivery is, first and foremost, driven by a genuine “brownfield first” approach, as we have emphasised time and time again in your Lordships’ House.
The second and latest report highlights the need for long-term, compelling vision from central government both to inspire the design and place-making of these new towns and to manage their operational delivery, which the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, referred to when he said that we needed drive, leadership and inspiration. However, “vision” is not a word that is frequently associated with the current, caretaker Prime Minister, let alone “long-term”—I think the noble Baroness should perhaps have a word with him and pass on some of her enthusiasm and energy. Indeed, the Government have already cut five of their 12 proposed new towns, with just seven remaining, and with the withdrawal of proposals for Adlington in Cheshire, all the proposed new towns are really urban extensions rather than stand-alone towns.
We cannot think about new towns in the abstract. Our islands have a long history and every corner has its own local identity, heritage and traditions that should not be steamrollered over by Whitehall. People do not want greenwashed housing estates concreting over their countryside, as my noble friend Lord Herbert of South Downs articulated clearly earlier.
The second report recommends that these new towns should not repeat past mistakes. We particularly welcome the recommendation for design standards to be supplemented by locally sensitive design standards for each individual new town. We must follow the evidence collected by those such as Create Streets of what ordinary passers-by and residents like to see, and to empower small and medium-sized builders.
As the Government’s former Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, Angela Rayner, said during the last general election:
“We’re always hearing that people want tree-lined streets of townhouses, so that’s what we’ll build”.
I think the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, could give some advice there around the trees. What has changed? The previous Government started this work to overcome the design disconnect, yet the Labour Government began by deleting references to aesthetics and beauty in the National Planning Policy Framework, despite the hard work undertaken by the Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission.
We began the work for Greater Cambridge, too, which my noble friend Lord Lansley referenced, as a potential urban extension. I remember some of the early work through Homes England. The current Conservative Mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough is committed to growth and to tackling long-standing infrastructure challenges, yet Greater Cambridge seems absent from the Government’s latest plans. Local planning authorities and developers benefit from certainty and long-term consistency from central government. Can the Minister update the House on what plans the Government now have for Greater Cambridge specifically?
The committee’s latest report recommends that the Government move beyond short-term metrics to measure the cost-effectiveness of individual new towns, and the second report makes clear the need for government to bring in private investors from the start. Good design with inclusive infrastructure built in from the start saves money in the long term, and this needs to be measured effectively, as my noble friend Lord Jamieson reminded us. What steps are the Government taking to cut the public costs of design and delivery phases?
Making the design and delivery more straightforward for planning authorities and developers requires leadership from the Government, rather than letting public money be used to pay for external consultants with no clear outcome or action in sight, or for endless public consultations, which, in reality, do not take people’s views on design seriously.
As the Social Housing Bill makes its way through your Lordships’ House, I would be interested to hear from the Minister how social housing will form part of their seven remaining new towns. How will new social homes be allocated and how will new tenants be prioritised?
We are seeing the consequences of a Government who came to power without a plan and a party which campaigned on the promise of attractive homes only to backtrack a few weeks in, which pledged 1.5 million new homes that may take more than five and a half more years to deliver, and which promised a new generation of new towns only to cut five of the 12 proposed, with Tempsford being the only genuinely new town. The Government did not, and still do not, have a long-term vision, let alone one backed by a thought-through plan for delivery.
I look forward to hearing answers from the Minister and, looking ahead—if indeed housing delivery remains a priority for this Government—when this House can expect the Government’s full response to the committee’s latest report on creating communities.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, to her place and congratulate her on her elevation to the Front Bench. I very much look forward to working with her.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, for securing this important debate and for the Built Environment Committee’s extensive work. With 88 witnesses, and overseas visits to make sure that they were looking at what was happening overseas, it went above and beyond—well done. Its inquiry looked at the opportunities and challenges of delivering a whole new generation of new towns.
The Government are absolutely committed to building the next generation of new towns, using all the powers at their disposal, to make sure that we hand the keys of not just home ownership but new communities to thousands of families. The post-war new towns programme was the most ambitious town-building effort ever undertaken in the UK. Starting with the first designated new town of Stevenage in 1946—a place very close to my own heart, as all noble Lords know—it transformed the lives of millions of working people by giving them affordable and well-designed homes in well-planned surroundings. I take this opportunity, as it is probably the only discussion we will have about new towns before its birthday, to wish my town a very happy 80th birthday, which falls in November.
The 32 communities that the post-war new towns programme created are now home to millions of people, including some of the Members who have spoken in today’s debate. The Government will continue to invest in the regeneration of the existing new towns and to learn from them. My clear view is that we need to inspire a new generation with the excitement and energy that the previous generation of new town pioneers, such as my parents, had when they came to live in those places. The words from the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, about young people’s engagement very much hit home with me—they are music to my ears, as we have to inspire young people.
Let us not forget about the nimbys that the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, spoke about. When my town was proposed, a meeting was held at the town hall. It was then a town of 6,000 people, and it was proposed to grow to 60,000 people. When Lord Silkin turned up to talk to Stevenage people about it, they took the name off the station and put “Silkingrad” there instead—so distressed were they at the thought of this expansion.
It is important to learn the lessons from previous large-scale expansions as we embark on the newest chapter. The Government are committed to building on that legacy. The Government agree with the committee that it is important that new towns are grounded in a clear and ambitious vision. As emphasised in the Government’s recently published consultation, new towns represent a bold and nationally significant response to address the range of challenges caused by housing constraints and the need to power up our economy and to build the foundations of strong communities: health, education and family formation. We want to make sure that we are building not only new homes but new communities that can support people throughout their lives.
Building at scale is central to this strategy. Each new town will deliver at least 10,000 homes, with many expected to exceed this number, including all seven priority areas being assessed. This scale enables efficient land use, supports supply chain growth and innovation, and creates the conditions for integrated infrastructure and high-quality place-making. It provides the opportunity to deliver affordable housing and social infrastructure in a way that smaller sites cannot, ensuring that new towns provide homes for everyone to live in.
As emphasised by both the committee and the New Towns Taskforce, success will ultimately depend on strong and co-ordinated government intervention. The Government have been clear that delivery must be infrastructure-first and design-led—including through master planning—and enabled by effective delivery vehicles such as development corporations where appropriate. Clear expectations and support will be set to achieve high quality place-making with long-term stewardship, to ensure that new towns are built to last.
The Government recently carried out a public consultation on the proposed new towns programme, which built on the findings of the taskforce report in September 2025. It invited views on how the new towns programme will operate, how new towns could be delivered and planned, and the proposed approach to design and planning policy. I really appreciated the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Young, about design.
Of course, new towns present a great opportunity to have innovative design both in town planning and housing design. The consultation sought views on the Government’s offer to locations, including a strategic environmental assessment which assesses the impacts of the programme in proposed broad locations, the cumulative effects of the development of new towns and practical methods of mitigation and monitoring. As part of that consultation, we set out our plan to take seven locations forward through the proposed programme. These represent the strongest proposals, which are capable of collectively unlocking hundreds of thousands of new homes and improving people’s quality of life in communities across the country. This includes Tempsford, Leeds South Bank, Chase Park and Crews Hill in Enfield, Thamesmead, Manchester Victoria North, Brabazon and the West Innovation Arc in south Gloucestershire, and Milton Keynes. These proposals are at different stages of maturity and require different types of intervention and support, including blends of public and private capital, to achieve their potential.
The Government therefore intend to tailor their approach to each new town, with a view to making as much progress as possible, as fast as possible. They identified a number of locations that were also found to meet the objectives and are propositions that represent credible development opportunities. However, we have decided to prioritise places initially where a new town’s intervention can have the most transformative impact.
None the less, there is strong potential to deliver housing in places that have not been included in the proposed programme. I will come to Cambridge in a minute, but this is particularly true of Plymouth, which presents a unique opportunity to bolster the UK’s defence and security sector. Plymouth will require special consideration and its own bespoke financial support package to unlock its potential as a centre of excellence in naval technology. Plymouth council is already making huge strides in the regeneration of the town centre, and its MPs have worked with Government to secure defence spending for British technology. So, we must ensure that housing does not act as a barrier to growth. The Government have pledged to do whatever it takes to get spades in the ground in at least three of the new towns by the end of this Parliament and to progress many more, if possible.
As part of our offer to new towns locations, we will ensure that we work across government to deliver this vision, including through the industrial strategy; invest millions of pounds of public and private sector funding into excellent local facilities, including GP surgeries, schools, libraries, transport and the environment; work with world-class architects, planners and urban designers to plan each town with its own character and distinct, unique identity; and ensure that the state’s full planning powers are available to rapidly build new homes and all the necessary supporting infrastructure, including clean energy and digital infrastructure. I very much agree with the strong statement from the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, on infrastructure and housing being developed together.
New towns are just part of a wider effort from government to get Britain building again. Over the last two years, the Government have delivered fundamental reform to the planning system. Last December, we saw the culmination of this, with the Planning and Infrastructure Act and a definitive overhaul of the National Planning Policy Framework, which will boost housing supply and unlock economic growth in the years ahead. These strong foundations will facilitate the delivery of high and sustainable rates of housebuilding in the years ahead.
Let me be clear: we must get Britain building again. To respond to a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, the £39 billion investment in social and affordable housing is the most that has ever been invested. Our new towns programme will benefit through that as well. We want a huge percentage of that to be social housing, so we will support social housing in our new towns as well. We must crack on with this, and our new towns programme will be a step change in the delivery of the new homes our country so desperately needs.
I turn to some of the very specific points that were made during the debate. As he was the chair of the committee, I will pick up the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, first. He asked me about a firm date for the delivery of the government response. The Government are carefully considering the responses to the recent consultation. It is very important that we fully understand the range of views on the programme, including its environmental impacts. We will publish a full response to the recommendations later this year, once the necessary environmental assessments are completed and final decisions have been made on locations, which are still to come.
The noble Lord asked me about leadership with genuine and real cross-government authority, and that was a point echoed by many noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Cameron and Lord Doyle, and the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews. The Secretary of State and the Minister of State for Housing and Planning are key sponsors of the programme and have the power of Cabinet committee structures behind them to co-ordinate requirements for new towns across Whitehall. Delivering the next generation will be a cross-government effort and central to the Government’s agenda not just in terms of building homes but to drive economic growth and spread economic opportunity across the country. We will work closely with other departments and regulators to ensure that new towns are factored into their future spending plans, ensuring that they have the utilities, transport and social infrastructure needed for those communities to survive.
The third question from the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, was about a small government ownership stake in each development corporation, and our ambition is that the new towns model will transform the way that large settlements are delivered, providing long-term certainty to attract sustained investment. We are assessing delivery vehicle models for each place, and the proposed government offer in the consultation sets out that, subject to the needs of each location, locations taken forward as new towns will benefit from resource and capital funding. That could include a mixture of grant and financial instruments, including equity investment, loans and guarantees to develop town-wide master plans, comprehensive infrastructure, and the establishment and maintenance of governance structures. I will make some further points about funding, but that is key to where we are.
The noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, also asked me about level 7 apprenticeship funding, and I absolutely take the point. We recognise that level 7 apprenticeships have been a valuable route into professions, but we are reforming funding to prioritise young people entering the labour market and targeting support where it has the greatest long-term impact. We are investing £48 million to strengthen planning capacity and expand alternative routes into planning through pathways to planning, public practice and the new planning careers hub. That will all be valuable in terms of the issues that the noble Lord raised.
I think place-making was raised by almost all noble Lords who spoke but particularly by the noble Baronesses, Lady O’Neill of Bexley and Lady Andrews, and the noble Lords, Lord Cameron, Lord Redwood, and Lord Jamieson. We have been very clear: we want exemplary development to be the norm, not the exception. The next generation of new towns have to be well-connected, well-designed, sustainable, healthy and attractive places where people want to live and have all the infrastructure, amenities and services necessary to sustain thriving communities established from the outset.
Subject to the outcomes of the consultation, we intend to incorporate the proposed place-making principles in the draft new towns planning policy, and the place-making principles should be reflected in town-wide master plans and design codes. As part of the government offer, we are proposing to establish a new town place review panel, which will provide impartial advice to delivery bodies and planning authorities, as well as practical design and place-making guidance for new town delivery.
A number of noble Lords have mentioned community engagement, and this is a very important part of the work that we have been undertaking. The noble Lords, Lord Gascoigne and Lord Cameron, in particular, mentioned it, and the noble Lords, Lord Lansley and Lord Cameron, both referred to consultation with young people. They are going to be the people living in these towns, so that is vital. We are very clear that existing communities should be a key part of any new town development and effective community engagement is key to creating connections between existing and new residents and helping to build successful places. That does not avoid all the nimby-type approaches, but it will help to engage people in making sure that they have a say in how these places are designed.
The Government will continue to engage with communities, local authorities, delivery bodies and investors to make sure that the new towns are planned and delivered to the highest standards. The recent consultation was the first of many opportunities for people to shape the design and creation of this new generation of new towns.
The points that were made around development corporations are really important, because the governance of how these new developments are taken forward is critical. The noble Lords, Lord Gascoigne and Lord Jamieson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, raised issues around this. We are assessing delivery vehicle options for each proposed location to make sure that they are best placed to drive forward each of those places. That includes development corporations where appropriate, but our consultation was clear that different propositions will require different types of intervention. Delivery vehicles beyond development corporations could include, for example, legal partnerships that pool land and delivery expertise between public and private bodies.
The points about mayoral development corporations are well made. The visionary devolution framework we are delivering now will, I hope, deliver at the pace that I know noble Lords are keen to see. I was grateful for the support for mayoral development corporations when we took the devolution Bill through.
On wider issues around funding for new towns, the funding required in this spending review period will vary according to the needs of the locations chosen. The precise funding offer will be confirmed once final decisions on the programme have been taken. That will be when the new towns draft programme consultation is closed and all strategic environmental assessments are complete.
Delivery will be backed by funding across the landmark housing programmes, such as the £39 billion social and affordable housing programme, hundreds of millions of pounds-worth of grant from the national housing delivery fund, and additional capital funding managed by the National Housing Bank. We will continue to consider the ways in which private finance can support delivery, alongside government funding and intervention. We will be working with other departments and regulators to ensure that they are factoring new towns into their spending plans for the future to make sure that that comes forward from all departments across government.
We have heard much about the lessons to be learned from previous generations of new towns from the noble Lords, Lord Gascoigne and Lord Cameron, the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, and others. In establishing this programme, we are inspired by the proud legacy of the 1945 Labour Government, who kick-started the ambitious programme for building new towns in the years and decades following the Second World War, as well as subsequent waves of new towns. However, we recognise that we must learn the lessons.
The noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, as he went through his committee meetings on this, was keen to make sure that we understand the lessons from previous generations. These often emphasised car-based commuting and did not always embed long-term stewardship, which is vital, into their development. We have seen huge success in places such as Milton Keynes, which has demonstrated the potential of well-planned developments to create thriving communities and act as a catalyst for economic growth, which is certainly what we want to see. A long-term stewardship model for new towns must be in place from the outset, including clear governance and funding structures to manage and maintain communal assets over the long term.
The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, raised Cambridge. I was grateful to him when I carried out a visit, on which we went to Waterbeach, Cambourne and Northstowe. It was great to visit that area and see how lessons have been learned. The Government published a response to the consultation on establishing the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation on 3 June. Cambridge is not part of the new towns programme and the development corporation will form an exemplar for integrated powers and funding, setting the standard for housing development elsewhere in the country, including for the new towns programme. Unlocking barriers to growth in Greater Cambridge was an immediate priority of this Government. The Housing Minister wrote to local leaders in August 2024, setting out the Government’s early approach to working with local partners to support the sustainable growth of Cambridge. I look forward to working further on this. I know that the noble Lord will be keeping a careful eye on what we are doing in Cambridge.
My noble friend Lady Andrews asked about housing targets. The Government consider that the delivery of housing in new town proposals should contribute towards meeting the identified housing need of relevant strategic and local planning authorities in all instances. We are clear that that is the way we are approaching the housing that will be included in new town developments.
The noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, asked about land value capture. The lessons we learned from previous new towns suggest that the long-term increase in the value of land can be successfully captured and reinvested as the town continues to grow. We will be taking that into account as we work through the governance and funding structures for our new towns.
Before I draw my remarks to a close, I will briefly respond to the noble Lord, Lord Herbert, on Forest City. We are aware of the Forest City proposals and will be following how they progress through the appropriate local consultations and approvals, but this is not part of our new towns programme or proposal.
In closing, I say that our vision is certainly to create the towns of the future with place-making at their heart, shaped by what worked in the past, informed by what did not work in the past, and inspired by a bright future for those who will live in, work in and visit this new generation of new towns for a new age. I am grateful for the thoughtful scrutiny and contributions in this debate. I assure all those who have participated that the concerns they have raised will be at the forefront of my mind as we continue to progress our work on new towns, turning the taskforce vision into delivery on the ground.
Lord Gascoigne (Con)
I thank the Minister. I know the hour is late, so I will not respond to all the points that have been made, but it has been a fascinating and energising discussion from across the political divide. I am grateful to the Minister for some of the additional information that the Government have given us. We are not quite there yet, but let us see what later in the year delivers us.
The Minister knows all too well that I am a fan of hers—I genuinely am—but in this debate, I feel that we are missing an opportunity. I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, who used the words “commanding leadership”. We all know that life is short and political life is even shorter—my own experience in No. 10 can testify to that. Governing is not easy. Even things that should be simple and quick are not. I feel that we are slightly taking our foot off the pedal here. For example, we keep hearing—the Minister said it again—references to the Cabinet committee. My own experience of Cabinet committees, great as they are, is that they are slightly reactive and not proactive. That is a slight concern that we have.
We have used the language of being a “critical friend”, and we remain so. In today’s debate we have heard about energy, keenness, leadership, passion, urgency, boldness, decisiveness, passion and urgency from my noble friend Lord Redwood in a brilliant speech. The clock is ticking but, as I said, we can do it.
In responding to the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, the Minister said that something was music to her ears. I want to give her an example. This morning, I dropped my kids off and it was a bit fraught, we were all running behind, my wife was at work, and I was thinking, “I’ve got this debate”. I dropped the kids off, jumped in the car and the music blasting out was from that well-known architect and urban planner, Elvis Presley. The lyrics of the song—and I end with this—were:
“A little less conversation, a little more action, please”.