A key plank of the Labour Party’s manifesto this year was the building of 1.5 million new homes in five years, to address our chronic housing shortage. But while almost everyone agrees that more houses are needed, location is more problematic. Entirely new towns might be an answer.
Plans to build on some areas of green belt land, and to designate land as ‘grey belt’ and available for development, have caused cries of alarm. Local authorities face strong pressure from central government to meet house-building targets which they have failed on for many years. There is particular concern about building new sprawling housing estates on the outskirts of existing communities, where infrastructure and amenities may already be overloaded. So where can the building happen, and how can it help tackle the government’s ambitious plans for economic growth?
Building new towns?
One partial solution is to build entirely new towns, where transport and business accommodation can be planned in, alongside health and educational services. This was a successful strategy in the 1950s, when a generation of new towns was built, with integrated plans for housing, industry and services, especially to accommodate population overspill from bombed-out London. In opposition, the Labour Party has talked about this as a solution to the problem, but without being specific about where and how this might be done.
If a new town is to become a real community, and not merely a dormitory, it needs a clear rationale for its location. For Basildon it was proximity to Ford’s manufacturing plants in South Essex, for Crawley it was Gatwick airport, and for Washington the new Nissan plant. But all three were also in range of a major city, allowing easy commuting to supplement local employment, and ensure a mixed community and economy.
Tempsford: the ideal location?
One such site has been proposed in our region. Tempsford in Bedfordshire is an unremarkable small village, but in a critical transport intersection. It is on the A1 at the point where the planned East-West railway, which is to provide a direct line from Oxford to Great Yarmouth via Cambridge and Norwich, crosses the East Coast Main Line.
In July, UKDayOne, a left-leaning think tank, published a proposal arguing that this is an ideal location. They claim it could support a viable new town of 250,000–350,000 people, comparable in size with the larger new towns of previous generations, and larger than Cambridge. They argue that it has the potential for major economic activity, especially in the life sciences, where Oxford and Cambridge are running out of laboratory space. By rail, Tempsford would be 20 minutes from Cambridge, and under an hour from Oxford and central London, all of which have severe housing shortages. It would also have direct rail links to York, Leeds and Norwich. UKDayOne describe it as “probably the best connected greenfield site in Britain”.
Timescales and action
UKDayOne believe that if the government move quickly, the first residents could move in before the next general election. But to do this government needs to create a development corporation, with extended planning powers to develop infrastructure. They would also need to finance an upgrade to the East Coast Main Line to eliminate a rail bottleneck which restricts rail traffic between Tempsford and London at the Digswell viaduct. Support would be needed to accelerate work on the East-West rail link, where the final leg from Bedford to Cambridge, which includes Tempsford, is not currently planned to open before 2030. There is also a need to increase reservoir capacity to cope with the greater demand for water. In addition, UKDayOne propose a high tech tram network to make travel within the new town greener.
Opposition
Making progress on this depends on the government’s planned legislation to reform planning laws, but this is an extremely complex field of law, especially with the creation of a New Town Commission with powers over issues like compusory purchase.
As with previous new towns, there will certainly be local opposition. It appears that the relevant local authorities were not consulted about this proposal, and they have not yet approved the third phase of the East-West line, which it depends on. There are also concerns that the site is in the valley of the River Great Ouse, which is already prone to flooding (at the time of writing it was on flood alert).
Will Angela Rayner and Rachel Reeves grasp the nettle?
This is an ambitious proposal. It is also not cheap. It would require a more creative approach to government investment than some think Rachel Reeves is willing to undertake. But without something like this it is difficult to see how the government’s housing and economic growth ambitions can be fulfilled. Over the next year we will see if the government has the nerve to take on the opposition, and go for the growth they have promised.
