The Renaissance of New Towns
Posted on
“Build, baby, build”
Labour has placed housebuilding at the heart of its economic growth strategy, pledging to deliver 1.5 million new homes by 2029. Housing Secretary Steve Reed captured this ambition with his now well-known call to “build, baby, build,” aiming to give every family access to a decent home.
On the opening day of Labour’s annual party conference, the Housing Secretary announced that, as part of this commitment, construction on three new towns will begin before the next general election.
This move follows the recommendations of the New Towns Taskforce, which published a report in September 2025 identifying 12 potential new town locations. These include a new settlement to support growth industries in Greater Manchester, the redevelopment of the former airbase at Heyford Park, and densified urban development in Plymouth, capitalising on the government’s significant investment in HMNB Devonport.
To support delivery, the government will also establish a dedicated New Towns Unit to drive progress on these developments.
What is the core vision for a new town?
While there is considerable scope for local variation, the government has identified several key success factors for new towns:
- Settlements of at least 10,000 new homes – This scale supports economies of scale and enables the creation of mixed-use, self-sustaining communities.
- 40% affordable housing, with half for social rent – This target reflects the significant unmet need for affordable homes and the importance of mixed-tenure communities in fostering social resilience and long-term success.
The Taskforce also emphasises the need for government departments responsible for public services—such as water, health, and policing—to develop clear strategies for supporting new towns. In addition, a coordinated approach to delivering transport, utilities, and wider infrastructure is essential to ensure these places function effectively from the outset.
How will new towns be delivered?
The Taskforce has endorsed a range of delivery models but has identified several key trends:
- Land control is critical – Controlling land enables stronger influence over placemaking and development outcomes.
- Public sector involvement drives quality – Public control often results in better development outcomes, even in Joint Venture (JV) models. The Taskforce recommends maintaining sufficient leverage within JVs to secure public interest objectives.
- Development corporations are preferred – Among the available models, development corporations are seen as the most effective delivery vehicle due to their proven ability to accelerate delivery.
What is so special about development corporations?
The powers for development corporations vary depending on which statutory structure is chosen (see below). They include powers to acquire land compulsorily as well as powers to promote new town development plans and supplementary planning guidance, and to determine their own planning applications.
Compulsory Purchase – The Taskforce acknowledges that land ownership across large sites is often fragmented, making land assembly challenging. Disagreements over ‘hope value’—the anticipated increase in land value due to future development—frequently stall progress. However, under the ‘no scheme world’ assumption in the compulsory purchase compensation framework, any uplift in land value resulting from the proposed new town (including associated planning frameworks) can be disregarded when determining compensation.
Planning Powers – The Taskforce believes that greater planning autonomy can enable faster and higher-quality placemaking. Certain types of development corporations have the authority to allocate land, prepare and adopt master plans, set design codes, and determine planning applications independently of local authorities. In some cases, development orders can also be used to streamline—or 'deregulate'—the planning process. This autonomy allows development corporations to better coordinate infrastructure delivery with housing development and ensure consistent placemaking standards.
The combination of these powers can help de-risk delivery for the private sector.
What kinds of development corporations are there?
Much of the legislation underpinning today’s development corporations dates back to the early 1980s. As a result, these corporations operate under different legal frameworks, with varying powers and remits depending on the specific legislation that governs them.
They include:
- Urban Development Corporations (UDCs)
- New Town Development Corporations (NTDCs)
- Locally Led New Town Development Corporations (LLTDCs)
- Mayoral Development Corporations (MDCs)
Establishing a development corporation is a complex process. For example, Urban Development Corporations (UDCs) and New Town Development Corporations (NTDCs) require the Secretary of State to determine that designating an area for development is in the national interest. Under the Locally-Led New Town Development Corporation (LLNTDC) model, the Secretary of State can appoint a local authority as the oversight body—but fulfilling this role depends on sufficient local authority resources. Meanwhile, a Mayoral Development Corporation (MDC) can be created by a combined authority mayor in England, but only once the legal process of conferring the necessary powers—similar to those held by the Mayor of London—is completed.
What next?
The Taskforce’s recommendations represent a positive step toward establishing development corporations and delivering new towns. However, the proposals must still undergo a thorough Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) to ensure that their environmental impacts are fully understood. Given the scale and complexity of these proposals, the SEA process is likely to be lengthy and challenging.
The Taskforce also acknowledges that planning frameworks take time to develop and adopt. It therefore encourages proactive decision-making even before a dedicated development plan for each new town is in place. This approach will likely require additional government guidance, given that the current planning system is fundamentally plan-led.
Is this the right way forward?
Critics of the new town agenda argue that instead of creating more potentially struggling towns, we should focus on strengthening existing cities—helping them thrive and compete economically and politically with major metropolitan hubs like London. However, it is worth noting that the Taskforce has taken a flexible and imaginative approach to new towns. For example, it has supported the Plymouth proposals, which resemble an urban regeneration project more than a traditional new town development.