The Chancellor wants a ‘strategic state’ and, so far, the new towns fit the bill
The new towns programme is expanding, but delivery, governance and infrastructure funding will determine its success.
The new towns programme is expanding, but delivery, governance and infrastructure funding will determine its success.
At the annual last week, the Chancellor spoke about economic growth requiring ‘an active and strategic state’ and pointed to the new towns programme as an example of what this means in practice.
Following the launched yesterday, that ambition has taken a few more steps towards becoming reality.
While this week’s  have focused on the fact that some of the twelve locations recommended by the Taskforce are not being taken forward, this has long been expected.
What is meaningful now is that seven, rather than only the initial three, will receive significant Government backing. As Figure 1 shows, the programme now looks more comparable to new towns programmes of the past in scale. The level of ambition is not quite at post-war levels of an ‘active’ state, but it is not too far off either.
The Government also have not ruled out adding more to the list, and it seems likely that many of the remaining programmes will receive some support, albeit not under the ‘new towns’ banner.
The seven all make a lot of sense as they respond to the different housing challenges in different parts of the country.
Five are in the south and east of England – one genuinely new town, three large urban extensions and one large regeneration project in London’s suburbs. Given this is where demand for new housing is greatest, this geographical focus makes sense. These locations are also more likely to be financially viable, as previous 911±¬ÁÏÍø research has pointed out.
The two other sites are large urban regeneration projects inside Leeds’ and Manchester’s urban cores. 911±¬ÁÏÍø research showed recently that these cities have far less housing close to city-centre jobs than their international peers, so this focus on adding housing density to support the economic performance of these key northern cities also demonstrates ‘strategic’ thinking.
It is also welcome that Reeves’ definition of an ‘active’ state does not always mean central government doing the work.
While no formal new-town-specific budgets have been announced, West Yorkshire’s and Greater Manchester’s mayors will likely take a leading role in governing their respective new towns. The ‘’ announced last week includes £145 million for West Yorkshire and £175 million for Greater Manchester, and the new towns are listed as example projects on which the money is expected to be spent.
Development corporations established for other new towns may be answerable to central government, but where there are established city leaders ready to take on the challenge, responsibility is rightly likely to be devolved. With other Mayoral Development Corporations  across the country, the Leeds and Manchester new towns will just be the largest examples of this devolved, active state coordinating development where it otherwise might not happen.
The locations are well justified and the trajectory on likely governance is positive, but the hard part of the new towns programme – delivery – will be where this ambition is tested.
Key decisions on which new towns will be managed by development corporations and initial funding allocations still need to be made. And while the draft plan sensibly identifies important infrastructure bottlenecks for each site, a hard commitment to fund these has not yet been made.
A summer announcement on these crunchier decisions will be the real litmus test of whether the Chancellor’s ambition for the new towns programme is rhetorical or material.
Leave a comment
Be the first to add a comment.