Snake Oil City: The Contemporary English New Town
Last week saw the release of the Labour Party’s long awaited Lyons Review on how to boost the supply of housing in England and Wales. A key plank of the proposals is to establish at least five ‘New Towns’.
The idea of delivering new towns to solve the UK housing crisis is not a new one. Ed Miliband has announced this policy twice before in 2014 alone– in February and September. Politicians before him have often cited new towns as a solution to all our housing problems. David Cameron said he supported the idea in 2012. Gordon Brown proposed 10 new ‘eco-towns’ in 2007. Tony Blair suggested a series of new towns to the east of London in 2003.
Yet the last time a new town was designated in England was 1970 – the snappily named ‘Central Lancashire.’ It is almost fifty years since a new town was started, despite them having been proposed by every Prime Minister for the last decade.
Why should that be?
Put simply, its because new towns are the snake oil of town planning. They sound great – new, sustainable settlements that can deliver large numbers of new homes and jobs – but delivering them is exceptionally hard.
They require miles of new roads, sewers, electricity cables and water mains, at huge up front cost. They need large numbers of developers to be operating all at once to deliver homes in the volume needed, which developers are often loathe to do because of the added competition they will face. Entirely new services are needed from shops to offices to schools to hospitals, all of which need a critical mass of users but without which residents don’t want to move to a town – chicken and egg. It can take years before new towns reach a critical mass and become self-sustaining communities. Yet the housing crisis is so acute – last year we built around half of the homes we need – that we don’t have the luxury of time.
Then surely a much easier solution is to build extensions to existing towns? If only it were that easy.
The problem with extending existing settlements is that those extensions are, by definition, near existing residents. And people in England don’t want new homes to be built near them. The Government’s recent Public attitudes to new house building survey found that 82% of people thought homes were too expensive (but only 77% thought homes were too expensive in the area they lived). And despite this, only 47% of people said they would support new homes being built near were they live.
Any time there is a major development of any kind proposed, those that live nearby and will be impacted by it, oppose the development.
And that is exactly why the idea of a ‘New Town’ has such a tight grip on the imaginations of the public and politicians. By definition, a ‘new’ town isn't near anybody.
Its the pain free curative to the nations housing woes! The elixir that will bring money, luck and love to us all! So roll on up! Why wouldn't you give it a try!
So they get re-announced over and over and over before reality bites. Not only are they technically very complicated and time consuming to deliver but, on such a small island, they turn out always to be near somebody.
Cue objections and protests and headlines in the Daily Telegraph about how the lives of those in rural areas are about to be ruined by this carbuncle of a modern development.
Even the most self-interested NIMBY would agree that it is unacceptable that the average age of an unassisted first time buyer is now 33; that 652,000 households in England are living in over-crowded homes; that unassisted first time buyers spend an average of £81,321 on rent before buying their home; that house prices have increased by 295% since 1988; and that 80,000 children spent last Christmas in temporary accommodation.
But until people realise that the only way for all of that damage to be undone is to accept more development in their own areas, nothing will change – and New Towns will continue to be announced by smooth talking politicians without ever being delivered.
