The New Towns are an interesting idea, and worthy of an article in themselves. Their obvious merit is that the New Town Corporations would have sweeping powers to circumvent the planning process and thereby speed up the delivery of development land. At least in theory. The critical question (and one which Angela Raynor seems not to have considered) is whether or not the NTCs will be able to persuade the volume housebuilders to "get building", especially when they're compelled to produce "40% affordable housing", which amounts, in effect, to a demand that they sell houses at a loss, whilst also undermining local house prices to such an extent that their other assets become non-viable. My guess is that the developers will play along in theory, but then under-deliver in practice - and let's not forget that the UK suffers from a chronic shortage of skilled construction workers, so that'll be another problem in itself. Acquiring the land at agricultural prices through the use of Compulsory Purchase Orders is the obvious gain for the government, and might potentially restore the developers' margins; but it would be vulnerable to widespread corruption and would inevitably be challenged in the courts. Indeed, so controversial and arbitrary would be the powers of compulsory purchase - especially in the Home Counties where most of the New Towns are needed - that I find it hard to see any spades being put in the ground in the near future. So, will Labour push ahead with the New Town idea? I'm guessing they will because they've invested so much political capital in it; but it will face a blizzard of opposition and deliver precious few houses by the time of the next election. If - and it's a big if - Labour could come up with a New Town that was genuinely beautiful, in a location that was genuinely viable, with transport links that were genuinely adequate, and with a civic infrastructure that was something to be proud of, then maybe, just maybe, people wouldn't oppose it. They could do worse than start talking to King Charles.
Never seen a comment so illustrative British politics: taking issue with something manufactured by your imagination, whilst completely ignoring the real problem.
A great topic, so important.
It's sadly rare for anyone to say anything substantial and specific on the subject and I really appreciate this exception to that general rule.
The New Towns are an interesting idea, and worthy of an article in themselves. Their obvious merit is that the New Town Corporations would have sweeping powers to circumvent the planning process and thereby speed up the delivery of development land. At least in theory. The critical question (and one which Angela Raynor seems not to have considered) is whether or not the NTCs will be able to persuade the volume housebuilders to "get building", especially when they're compelled to produce "40% affordable housing", which amounts, in effect, to a demand that they sell houses at a loss, whilst also undermining local house prices to such an extent that their other assets become non-viable. My guess is that the developers will play along in theory, but then under-deliver in practice - and let's not forget that the UK suffers from a chronic shortage of skilled construction workers, so that'll be another problem in itself. Acquiring the land at agricultural prices through the use of Compulsory Purchase Orders is the obvious gain for the government, and might potentially restore the developers' margins; but it would be vulnerable to widespread corruption and would inevitably be challenged in the courts. Indeed, so controversial and arbitrary would be the powers of compulsory purchase - especially in the Home Counties where most of the New Towns are needed - that I find it hard to see any spades being put in the ground in the near future. So, will Labour push ahead with the New Town idea? I'm guessing they will because they've invested so much political capital in it; but it will face a blizzard of opposition and deliver precious few houses by the time of the next election. If - and it's a big if - Labour could come up with a New Town that was genuinely beautiful, in a location that was genuinely viable, with transport links that were genuinely adequate, and with a civic infrastructure that was something to be proud of, then maybe, just maybe, people wouldn't oppose it. They could do worse than start talking to King Charles.
Really important topic. Sad you blatantly used AI to write this though? There’s a repeat in the sentences for two points that gives it away…
What are you talking about?
Where's the repeat?
Never seen a comment so illustrative British politics: taking issue with something manufactured by your imagination, whilst completely ignoring the real problem.