New towns, old problems: can Labour’s vision deliver real communities?

Nansledan aimed to avoid these mistakes by integrating schools, shops and workplaces within walkable distances. But at its current pace, it risks failing to deliver quickly enough at scale.

Labour’s top-down approach could, in theory, cut through this planning gridlock. However, for it to work, local authorities must still play a role in shaping these communities. A purely top-down approach risks creating developments that feel imposed rather than integrated.

It’s crucial to create a scalable blueprint for new towns – one that ensures infrastructure, transport and community amenities are delivered in tandem with housing. This is likely to require clever thinking on how investment and planning gain is generated, harnessed and timed.   

“It’s crucial to create a scalable blueprint for new towns – one that ensures infrastructure, transport and community amenities are delivered in tandem with housing”

New towns cannot exist on housing alone. A thriving community needs jobs, services and a sense of place. This is where Nansledan is making some progress, despite its phased development. Its mixed-use approach ensures that employment spaces, shops and schools are integrated alongside homes.

However, for large-scale new town developments, these need to be delivered faster and at scale, particularly if they are central to the 1.5 million new homes target. 

For me, the major challenge is funding early infrastructure. Roads, public transport and high streets need to be in place before communities move in, not set as an afterthought.

It’s been interesting to read Network Rail’s plan to set up a property company to build 40,000 homes on its estate, unlocking land for housing in transport-linked locations. This kind of public-sector-led development could help accelerate delivery, but the challenge remains in ensuring homes are built with placemaking principles at their core, rather than simply maximising numbers. 

Another key development milestone for Labour, which ties into the 100 new towns debate, is its proposal to re-examine the green belt. While we must push to really question its status as an ‘urban sprawl limiter’, we must acknowledge the fact that not all green belt land is equal. Some areas are worth protecting for their open countryside, valued landscape or ecological richness, while others are of lower quality with minimal environmental value. 

The concept of ‘grey belt’ can take us a little further to Labour’s goals, unlocking land for development while maintaining genuine conservation efforts. Nansledan is a good example of this, but also brings into the spotlight questions of placemaking. 

Being built on the edge of an existing town, Nansledan benefits largely from the already existing community. So, is it better to build adjacent to an existing settlement, letting towns grow instead of creating new ones? 

“Without early infrastructure investment, employment opportunities and sustainable transport links, these new towns risk becoming commuter hubs rather than thriving communities”

Or is the answer to simply build less and bigger? Bigger, more high-quality towns that can fill new schools, provide an array of employment opportunities and unlock open land. 

The government’s ambition to create 100 new towns is a once-in-a-generation opportunity, but only if the right lessons are applied and the right investment is put into training the next generation of construction workers. Without early infrastructure investment, employment opportunities and sustainable transport links, these new towns risk becoming commuter hubs rather than thriving communities. 

Nansledan offers valuable insights into design and placemaking, but its slow progress highlights the challenges of scaling up new town delivery. If the government wants to avoid repeating history, it must embrace flexible land use and put communities first.

Elle Cass, head of strategic built environment growth, SLR Consulting