The route to new towns must be bold

Increasingly, that tool is believed to be the development consent order (DCO). In fact, an Inside Housing headline in advance of the Spending Review called for “A last push for the reclassification of housing as essential infrastructure”.

Our history of new towns points firmly in this direction, with the most successful examples delivered through national intervention and bespoke planning powers. From Stevenage (designated in 1946) through to Milton Keynes (1967), the post-war programme was enacted via new towns acts and administered by development corporations. These bodies were granted full planning powers outside the local authority system.

The contrast with more recent examples is striking. In the 21st century, smaller settlements such as Northstowe and Welborne were brought forward via the local authority route, through the Town and Country Planning Act (TCPA) and local plans.

Many have struggled to deliver some of the amenities communities expect. Northstowe, which achieved outline planning permission in 2014 and has had a population since early 2017, only recently gained a bus shelter and still has no shops.

“Creating the exemplar new town, with the physical and social infrastructure to match, requires something more than a series of planning permissions. It needs power, clarity and scale”

It provides a unified consent process that cuts across the usual patchwork of permissions. It gives the secretary of state direct oversight, avoiding the paralysis that often follows local objections. It ensures structured engagement with consultees and the public from the start. And, crucially, it comes with a defined timeline for decision-making. 

For large-scale mixed-use schemes, the DCO has the capacity to do what local plans cannot: coordinate housing with transport, energy, schools and healthcare. It gives developers the certainty they need, free of political cycles and changing priorities.

Yes, it is front-loaded and demanding in terms of documentation, and it has not yet been tested on a major housing-led project. But its success in delivering national infrastructure (which, at Lanpro, we have seen time and time again in energy projects) is evidence enough that it is the best vehicle available.

By contrast, the TCPA approach is weighed down by politics, process and the lack of statutory weight.

“The DCO has the capacity to do what local plans cannot: coordinate housing with transport, energy, schools and healthcare. It gives developers the certainty they need, free of political cycles and changing priorities”

Local authority planning departments have been hollowed out. The specialist teams that once shaped new communities – architects, masterplanners and community liaison specialists – have mostly vanished. Even well-resourced councils struggle to keep local plans on track.

Furthermore, with the entire country moving towards a system of unitary authorities and elected mayors by 2027, the local planning landscape is in flux. In time, spatial development strategies will be part of the picture, but it’s ambitious to think they will include detailed new-town proposals, particularly while the structures that support them are still forming.

Local politics is never easy, perhaps now more than ever. It’s not known to support Labour’s flagship policy of addressing housing delivery, but the insurgent Reform party now controls nine councils and two mayoralties. From opposition to solar farms, to opposition to building on the green belt, the party’s policies to date suggest that local obstructionism in the interests of populism would be substantial.

Critics of the DCO route point to its limited local democratic accountability. That argument needs to be unpacked carefully.

The DCO process may bypass some elements of local decision-making, but it is not undemocratic. It is accountable to parliament, operates under statutory rules, and involves structured consultation throughout.

More importantly, Labour has a national mandate to significantly increase housing delivery, and new towns are part of that promise. On the basis of Labour’s 165-seat majority in parliament, there is democratic legitimacy in choosing the process that stands the best chance of success.

I have no doubt that the DCO regime, properly applied, is the best mechanism to deliver new towns at the pace and scale required.

At Lanpro, we’ve seen it work time and time again for energy projects – even those crossing local-authority borders. The same expertise and confidence can – and should – be brought to bear on large-scale, housing-led schemes.

William Nichols, regional director, Lanpro