It’s positive to see both Victoria North and Leeds South Bank on there because we need to prove we can accelerate brownfield development at scale in neighbourhoods that are adjacent to the commercial core of industrial cities. There’s whiff of ‘cheat’ as both sites are in growing cities with competent local authorities who have a well thought out strategy and development partners in place. The big win is creating a pattern that could be used in Liverpool, Birmingham and Sheffield.
Good analysis Sam. I think Adlington is the black sheep of the whole thing. It appears to have only been chosen (above building new towns in other places near Manchester) due to the rail station and consolidated ownership. This is a problem for two reasons, in addition to the one you mentioned.
The first (rail station) lends itself to a mirror town. However, the “mirroring” is largely prevented by a natural burial ground and the historic parkland of Adlington Hall (and some good old flood plain).
The second (consolidated ownership) should not really be a consideration for now towns, as I understand it, due to the development corporation model! Seems quite silly.
The issue you identify (about the house prices being due to amenity, that being of Pressburg and the rest of the footballer belt) is another obvious issue, and there is a lot of talk of no effect to the current “village” (suburban development next to a railway station). This would result in a low-density core to the new town, a crazy proposal! Coupled with the parkland, etc. on the other side of the road, and it would be a ring settlement, which is even more mad.
I think Adlington and areas around Manchester is worthy of an investigation to ensure that spunk is not spent on a blunder when really success is the only viable option.
I don’t know the Adlington site well, it may or may not be appropriate, but it does create the right challenge to greenbelt south of Greater Manchester. It’s sounds like you are close to how Cheshire East plans housing, and you’ll know that all that happens today is that demand is simply displaced even further south beyond the greenbelt. I don’t see why the golden triangle should get a pass.
I disagree with pushing stuff outside of the green belt; it’s very inefficient, leads to poor densities, creates sprawl (defeating green belt objective anyway) etc. Adlington could be good, but I think an expansion & densification to Macclesfield/Stockport (ideally both and more but Macclesfield my top pick) rather than a new town in between is a better choice. This would still need the green belt, but in the form of an urban expansion, which is the natural option. My main reasons why have been laid out in my comment and reply to Arthur above.
One of the big things is the “could”. From promises made to Adlington residents by the landowners on the new town’s new website (and perhaps some insurmountable facts of life re: historic sites, which I don’t think should be destroyed without an incredibly strong case for, including being the best amongst counterfactuals) this “could” seems to be being squandered.
If done well Adlington will come to reflect many of the large(ish) towns that already exist in Cheshire within rail-commuting distance of Manchester. These are largely isolated towns surrounded by countryside with decent rail links. This appeals to people I think, and there are great job opportunities that side of Cheshire.
I commute semi-regularly from Oxford to Manchester on the CrossCountry train. I have come to think that the Macclesfield area is pretty prime for the right new town. However, I want to see it done right. In short, I think Adlington is currently on track to not succeed on that front.
1. The premiums. As you identify, the most successful Cheshire East towns have a good commuter link to Manchester, but are separate from the conurbation. Adlington would not fit this model well. This is the footballer belt, and so the highest prices are due to the effect Sam points out (and you note in stating what makes these towns work). Adlington would join Macclesfield and the conurbation, which is not in itself a bad thing, aside from the fact this diverts from the success model of Macclesfield and the other smaller nearby towns. For this model of a finger into greenery to succeed, there are also much higher transport requirements and costs, by which I mean some light/faster transport between Manchester and Adlington (and therefore Macclesfield, as this is an obvious continuation). This was somewhat identified by the taskforce, to their credit. However, given the required transport (with light transport to Macclesfield, in effect, as is) and the removal of some amount of the premiums that would pay for such a link by removing the “isolated” nature of these towns, in my opinion, I believed densification and extension to Macclesfield was the best option, given the aim is a new town rather than a new city (in which case I have other ideas a little further afield).
2. The centre of the town. This has not been addressed. If you look at the website of Adlington New Town, promises have been made that will significantly hinder the density and thus walkability and neighbourhood of the centre of the town. These are: the preservation of the historic parkland (fair enough given it’s protected, I suppose) and the suburban-style commuter village that already exists (they have promised this will remain as is). These two areas surround the station as it is currently sited. This issue is, in part, because Belport have already created this website before there is a development corporation, making claims they can’t actually keep for it to be a good new town. On this front, again, I was inclined to therefore suspect extensions/densifications to existing Cheshire East towns might be a better option.
In summary, it would seem Adlington may be about 5 miles and one incredibly eager and over-promising landowner away from being the right site, in my opinion, and no doubt part of the “Adlington Estate” would become an extension in my best idea for a Cheshire East new town.
I would be interested in investigating this fully with people who care, if you’re interested? I think it’s roughly in the right place, but currently being taken a bit off track, perhaps partly by Belport and partly by the overlooking of what provides the house price premiums to the surrounding towns.
Hi Sam, really clear article distilling the key principles. Alot of your work refers to current environmental legislation, regs etc as a barrier to housing/infrastructure. Do you work closely with people in the ecology/conservation sectors? Do you have allies there? Can you point me to some supporters of your ideas from these areas? Thanks
It’s positive to see both Victoria North and Leeds South Bank on there because we need to prove we can accelerate brownfield development at scale in neighbourhoods that are adjacent to the commercial core of industrial cities. There’s whiff of ‘cheat’ as both sites are in growing cities with competent local authorities who have a well thought out strategy and development partners in place. The big win is creating a pattern that could be used in Liverpool, Birmingham and Sheffield.
Good analysis Sam. I think Adlington is the black sheep of the whole thing. It appears to have only been chosen (above building new towns in other places near Manchester) due to the rail station and consolidated ownership. This is a problem for two reasons, in addition to the one you mentioned.
The first (rail station) lends itself to a mirror town. However, the “mirroring” is largely prevented by a natural burial ground and the historic parkland of Adlington Hall (and some good old flood plain).
The second (consolidated ownership) should not really be a consideration for now towns, as I understand it, due to the development corporation model! Seems quite silly.
The issue you identify (about the house prices being due to amenity, that being of Pressburg and the rest of the footballer belt) is another obvious issue, and there is a lot of talk of no effect to the current “village” (suburban development next to a railway station). This would result in a low-density core to the new town, a crazy proposal! Coupled with the parkland, etc. on the other side of the road, and it would be a ring settlement, which is even more mad.
I think Adlington and areas around Manchester is worthy of an investigation to ensure that spunk is not spent on a blunder when really success is the only viable option.
I don’t know the Adlington site well, it may or may not be appropriate, but it does create the right challenge to greenbelt south of Greater Manchester. It’s sounds like you are close to how Cheshire East plans housing, and you’ll know that all that happens today is that demand is simply displaced even further south beyond the greenbelt. I don’t see why the golden triangle should get a pass.
I disagree with pushing stuff outside of the green belt; it’s very inefficient, leads to poor densities, creates sprawl (defeating green belt objective anyway) etc. Adlington could be good, but I think an expansion & densification to Macclesfield/Stockport (ideally both and more but Macclesfield my top pick) rather than a new town in between is a better choice. This would still need the green belt, but in the form of an urban expansion, which is the natural option. My main reasons why have been laid out in my comment and reply to Arthur above.
One of the big things is the “could”. From promises made to Adlington residents by the landowners on the new town’s new website (and perhaps some insurmountable facts of life re: historic sites, which I don’t think should be destroyed without an incredibly strong case for, including being the best amongst counterfactuals) this “could” seems to be being squandered.
If done well Adlington will come to reflect many of the large(ish) towns that already exist in Cheshire within rail-commuting distance of Manchester. These are largely isolated towns surrounded by countryside with decent rail links. This appeals to people I think, and there are great job opportunities that side of Cheshire.
Hi Arthur,
I commute semi-regularly from Oxford to Manchester on the CrossCountry train. I have come to think that the Macclesfield area is pretty prime for the right new town. However, I want to see it done right. In short, I think Adlington is currently on track to not succeed on that front.
1. The premiums. As you identify, the most successful Cheshire East towns have a good commuter link to Manchester, but are separate from the conurbation. Adlington would not fit this model well. This is the footballer belt, and so the highest prices are due to the effect Sam points out (and you note in stating what makes these towns work). Adlington would join Macclesfield and the conurbation, which is not in itself a bad thing, aside from the fact this diverts from the success model of Macclesfield and the other smaller nearby towns. For this model of a finger into greenery to succeed, there are also much higher transport requirements and costs, by which I mean some light/faster transport between Manchester and Adlington (and therefore Macclesfield, as this is an obvious continuation). This was somewhat identified by the taskforce, to their credit. However, given the required transport (with light transport to Macclesfield, in effect, as is) and the removal of some amount of the premiums that would pay for such a link by removing the “isolated” nature of these towns, in my opinion, I believed densification and extension to Macclesfield was the best option, given the aim is a new town rather than a new city (in which case I have other ideas a little further afield).
2. The centre of the town. This has not been addressed. If you look at the website of Adlington New Town, promises have been made that will significantly hinder the density and thus walkability and neighbourhood of the centre of the town. These are: the preservation of the historic parkland (fair enough given it’s protected, I suppose) and the suburban-style commuter village that already exists (they have promised this will remain as is). These two areas surround the station as it is currently sited. This issue is, in part, because Belport have already created this website before there is a development corporation, making claims they can’t actually keep for it to be a good new town. On this front, again, I was inclined to therefore suspect extensions/densifications to existing Cheshire East towns might be a better option.
In summary, it would seem Adlington may be about 5 miles and one incredibly eager and over-promising landowner away from being the right site, in my opinion, and no doubt part of the “Adlington Estate” would become an extension in my best idea for a Cheshire East new town.
I would be interested in investigating this fully with people who care, if you’re interested? I think it’s roughly in the right place, but currently being taken a bit off track, perhaps partly by Belport and partly by the overlooking of what provides the house price premiums to the surrounding towns.
Hi Sam, really clear article distilling the key principles. Alot of your work refers to current environmental legislation, regs etc as a barrier to housing/infrastructure. Do you work closely with people in the ecology/conservation sectors? Do you have allies there? Can you point me to some supporters of your ideas from these areas? Thanks
Great article Sam