Sites for Labour's New Towns that already have rail connections

[Meerkat]

This has been proposed before, and trials were conducted (See the Outer Trial Bank).
However it does not appear that the trial went particularly well.

I think desalination is probably the answer.

But desalination is associated in politicians minds with the enormous costs of plants in the 1990s and 2000s.

Doesn’t desalination cause issues with the release of highly saline water back into the sea?

 

[HSTEd]

Doesn’t desalination cause issues with the release of highly saline water back into the sea?

Yes, but careful design of the outfall system can disperse the plume to largely eliminate the impact of the brine.

 

[Magdalia]

Increasing the water supply is only (just over) half the issue. Nearly all of what goes in as water comes out again as sewage (the billing system assumes 90%), so sewage disposal capacity has to rise in line with water supply.

Our privatised water companies don't have a good record on sewage disposal, especially "careful design of outfall".


***EDIT*** this is a victim of auto merge!

The New Towns Taskforce met again on 1 October, this time in Cambridge, see here:

New Towns Taskforce learn lessons from Cambridge developments

The Taskforce visited Cambridge to gain key insights as they develop their recommendations for the next generation of new towns.

www.gov.uk

Our expert and independent New Towns Taskforce, chaired by Sir Michael Lyons, met today (1 October 2024) in Cambridge.

Taskforce members took the opportunity to explore the ongoing work in Cambridge and learn lessons from the city. The Taskforce heard from key players in the city, including officials from the Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Service and other officials from across the Greater Cambridge area. Greater Cambridge has a vital role in kickstarting economic growth across the country, and the Taskforce heard about award-winning developments in the local area plus the work to overcome key challenges, including water scarcity, to support future sustainable growth.

 

[BrianW]

Increasing the water supply is only (just over) half the issue. Nearly all of what goes in as water comes out again as sewage (the billing system assumes 90%), so sewage disposal capacity has to rise in line with water supply.

Our privatised water companies don't have a good record on sewage disposal, especially "careful design of outfall".


***EDIT*** this is a victim of auto merge!

The New Towns Taskforce met again on 1 October, this time in Cambridge, see here:

New Towns Taskforce learn lessons from Cambridge developments

The Taskforce visited Cambridge to gain key insights as they develop their recommendations for the next generation of new towns.

www.gov.uk

For Cambridge, read Oxford, Bedford/kempston, South MK, ,,, all valid New Town opportunities, including for water, given a Little More imagination?

Reopening the Cowley Branch Line for passengers – Oxford City Council

Oxford City Council, working with Oxfordshire County Council, local landowners, Network Rail and Department for Transport, is reviewing ways to reopen passenger services to the Cowley Branch Line in Oxford.

www.oxford.gov.uk

 

[OceanicIII]

The suggestion for a new town (by a think-tank rather than the Government) at Tempsford is overly simplistic and flawed. The suggestion is based on the current proposal to site the ECML/EWR interchange station nearby, but this plan is equally flawed.

Far better to route EWR through the existing St Neots station (which can accommodate the additional two lines with only minimal changes to the existing island platforms; ticket office; pedestrian bridge; lifts etc) and make St Neots the interchange station. The town already has the third-largest population in Cambridgeshire (after Peterborough and Cambridge) and could provide 33,000 (& growing) potential customers for EWR from its first day of operation. Far more sensible to build the required homes around an existing town, which already has the necessary services (albeit that would need to be expanded). In contrast, even if Tempsford New Town was built twice as fast as Cambourne, it will still only have 25,000 potential customers by around 2050. St Neots is likely to have a population closer to 50,000 by 2050.

The new A421 (currently being built between the Black Cat Roundabout/A1 and Caxton Gibbet) makes no provision for a new town. Highways England's plans do not include any additional connections to Tempsford, so all traffic would be forced onto the existing roundabouts (A1 & Barford Road - St Neots).

It is possible, that Highways England are aware of the flood prone nature of the Tempsford site (on the banks of the River Great Ouse), but even HE could not have anticipated the amount of flooding in the area in 2024. At the next measuring station (Eaton Socon - St Neots) downstream from the Tempsford site, the River Great Ouse has exceeded its 'highest recorded level' twice in the last twelve months. The think tank is clearly unaware of this, and that as well as the main spans of Roxton Bridge (near Tempsford), there are fourteen flood arches to accommodate the river when it becomes swollen and overtops flood defences.

In addition, not only do locals living in Tempsford, not want their village to be swamped by the building of thousands of homes, they don't want EWR or its station. In contrast, over 1600 people have already signed a petition calling for EWR to be routed via St Neots. https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/connect-st-neots-to-cambridge

It would also be fairer to expand St Neots, because at least the increased Council Tax revenue would be spent in/on the town. BEDS Council has/is planning thousands of homes at Tempsford; Dennybrook and Little Barford (all on the border with Cambridgeshire and a 'stones's throw' from St Neots). It is unfair and quite frankly devious, of BEDS Council to do this, knowing that immediate demands for public services as well as increased congestion etc, will fall on St Neots, yet BEDS Council will gain the additional Council Tax revenue.

Finally, before I'm accused of being a NIMBY, I would like to point out that I live in St Neots. Despite living on the very southern edge of the town (i.e. closest to the proposed EWR station at Tempsford), the planned station will not be convenient to reach; nor time-saving to use and will not tempt me out of my car. I believe St Neots should be the interchange station and accordingly, I have signed the above-mentioned petition.

 

[Magdalia]

The suggestion for a new town (by a think-tank rather than the Government) at Tempsford is overly simplistic and flawed.

The government plans for New Towns will be in the report of the New Towns Taskforce, due next summer.

If Tempsford is not at or near the top of the list of New Towns in the taskforce report, then I'll be very surprised. I've yet to see anyone come up with any New Town locations that are more suitable than Tempsford.

A new town at Tempsford won't be on the River Ouse flood plain, it will be east of the existing railway line, including the old RAF airfield.

The think tanks are just trying to second guess what the New Towns Taskforce will recommend.

if Tempsford New Town was built twice as fast as Cambourne, it will still only have 25,000 potential customers by around 2050.

The rate of growth of Cambourne is not a guide to how quickly New Towns will be built. The government wants to build 1.5 million new houses in 5 years. A lot of them are going to be in New Towns. The government isn't going to achieve the 1.5 million target if building is at the Cambourne rate, it will be much much faster.

 

[HSTEd]

The rate at which a greenfield towns can be thrown up is rather high.

If you want examples, even in the western world, see the growth of Phoenix in the United States.

As for the floodplain, at absolute worst we could probably elevate the ground floor by three or four feet without undue additional cost.

 

[Magdalia]

The rate at which a greenfield towns can be thrown up is rather high.

This is one of the reasons why the government is so keen in New Towns.

As for the floodplain, at absolute worst we could probably elevate the ground floor by three or four feet without undue additional cost.

No, they won't try that. Look at a map of St Neots. All of St Neots proper and Eynesbury are on the east side of the river, with the villages of Eaton Socon, Eaton Ford and Little Paxton on the west side. There is one road bridge over the river between St Neots and Eaton Ford, and one road bridge over the river between St Neots and Little Paxton. In between is the flood plain, which floods very frequently. Here is the Little Paxton bridge about a month ago:

St Neots flooding closes road at Little Paxton Bridge

Flood warnings are still in place for areas close to the River Great Ouse.

www.bbc.co.uk

A road which has been damaged twice this year due to flooding has been closed again after the nearby River Great Ouse burst its banks.

Little Paxton Bridge in St Neots, Cambridgeshire, was repaired and reopened in October after previous flooding exposed the old cobbles underneath the road.

Cambridgeshire County Council said its latest repair had been more substantial and would increase flood resilience.

Following Storm Bert, flood warnings remain in place for areas close to the River Great Ouse at Wyboston, Eaton Socon, Eynesbury, Eaton Ford and St Neots.

 

[Nottingham59]

If it's any help, here is the official flood risk map for the whole area between St Neots and Sandy:


[from https://flood-map-for-planning.service.gov.uk/ ]

 

[Magdalia]

If it's any help, here is the official flood risk map for the whole area between St Neots and Sandy:

A picture worth a thousand words!

It shows why any new town will be east of the ECML. The flood risk bits east of the ECML can be a nice park.

 

[Meerkat]

The rate at which a greenfield towns can be thrown up is rather high.

Only really if they are built as social housing, which causes its own problems.
Developers wont want to build that fast as they can't sell them that fast, and therefore can't get the prices they want - hence why big developments tend to get built out slowly over stages.

 

[HSTEd]

Only really if they are built as social housing, which causes its own problems.
Developers wont want to build that fast as they can't sell them that fast, and therefore can't get the prices they want - hence why big developments tend to get built out slowly over stages.

Well the state could just build them and sell them and not involve developers at all.

 

[joieman]

Well the state could just build them and sell them and not involve developers at all.

The idea I had of doing large-scale housing developments was basically to have developers compete to build houses to a set of criteria set by a local authority, (eg. proportion of social housing to private housing, size of dwellings and gardens, landscaping). I don't know how well this would work in reality, but I think it's worth a try.
(Personally, though, I think we also need to throw up some tower blocks here and there to minimise the impact of urban sprawl on the countryside. But I appreciate that the choice of the visual impact of tower blocks versus the visual and environmental impact of low-density suburban housing is an unpalatable dilemma for many a town planner.)

 

[Meerkat]

Well the state could just build them and sell them and not involve developers at all.

Then the state takes all the risk of the project with the addition of the risk of getting below cost market prices for the housing.
And someone has to shake the capital out of Reeves - good luck with that.

If you did decide that all of it must be built at once then you would just offer the developers some kind of price guarantee. Though building that fast would presumably have high costs from needing so much plant and skilled folk in one place.

 

[Technologist]

Yes, but careful design of the outfall system can disperse the plume to largely eliminate the impact of the brine.

The UK's entire yearly domestic water usage equates to about 2.5 cubic km of water, the North Sea is 54,000 km3 in volume, done with any level of sensibleness the environmental impact is in the order of taking a piss in Loch Ness. Desalination is pretty cheap when done right, see Israel as an example.

It's a shame that government doesn't do this sort of a top level calculation, communicate it and then set policy accordingly. Water supply isn't an issue , the biggest issues with water quality is farming run off and sewer overflow. However if you are building new build that will be new sewers so there shouldn't be issues of overflow as you won't be using combined sewers.

Regarding the economics of this, building new sewage infrastructure is much cheaper for residents than needing to bid the cost of existing 3-4 bed houses up to £1 million+ in popular areas.

Only really if they are built as social housing, which causes its own problems.
Developers wont want to build that fast as they can't sell them that fast, and therefore can't get the prices they want - hence why big developments tend to get built out slowly over stages.

That is a solvable problem which is caused by who gets the windfall costs of lands massive appreciation due to planning permission being given. At the moment its the land owner who has it when the local plan indicates that houses can be built there. The developer pays housing land prices and thus can't afford to risk crashing the local market. You could use compulsory purchase to get the land and the local authority would then own it, the developer could then be paid to build on an incentivised cost plus basis.

The LA could then sell the houses as fast as they like and choose how much money they want to make. If they want to move people in at a greater rate they could sell the houses at a lower cost, either way they'd make a load of money. Their principle limitation would be avoiding forcing to many existing residents into negative equity, we are a long way from this happening.

 

[Meerkat]

Their principle limitation would be avoiding forcing to many existing residents into negative equity, we are a long way from this happening.

On a local basis that would definitely happen. Plus the risk that you get ghost towns when demand doesn't build fast enough and/or you get social issues from bringing in too many outsiders into an area.

 

[Technologist]

The idea I had of doing large-scale housing developments was basically to have developers compete to build houses to a set of criteria set by a local authority, (eg. proportion of social housing to private housing, size of dwellings and gardens, landscaping). I don't know how well this would work in reality, but I think it's worth a try.
(Personally, though, I think we also need to throw up some tower blocks here and there to minimise the impact of urban sprawl on the countryside. But I appreciate that the choice of the visual impact of tower blocks versus the visual and environmental impact of low-density suburban housing is an unpalatable dilemma for many a town planner.)

There is no need to build tower blocks to increase housing density in most places, town houses, mansion blocks or terraces can house very large numbers of people. The vast majority of people live in urban areas in the UK and many of these are very low density compared to other countries in Europe. We could house literally hundreds of millions more people in the UK if we upped existing cities to the density of central Paris.

Here is the policy I would use:

1: We will not be re-valuing houses for council tax, you will value your property yourself. The new tax will be a % based scheme without the current regressive cut off point,
2: Be careful though because now if somebody offers to buy your house at that amount you valued it at you must accept the offer and begin a sale process.
3: Thus homeowners would be incentivised to supply a value that is close to a fair compulsory purchase value for that house.
4: We now essentially have a low paperwork compulsory purchase method which covers the whole country and a fair council tax system (even if the values are all inflated they should all be proportionally pretty similar to the underlying property value).

There would need to be protections for estates and financially unsavvy, e.g the council will estimate a value if the owner is not present, capable or the value looks very low. You wouldn't be able to compulsory purchase property from people as a means of harassment etc. There would need to be a minimum standard of property details to allow potential purchasers to assess housing value.

What this would mean is that infrastructure projects would be easier to obtain the land for and private developers would be able to buy up whole streets or areas of low density housing and re-build in higher density forms. I would include some sort of right to remain if a developer is involved so tenants or homeowners would have a preferential right to purchase or live in the new houses with the developer either having the phase the build so that they can move into a new house before theirs is demolished or extended or if this isn't possible the developer would have to house them.

Finally we need to get rid of the social housing requirements, simply building enough housing will make housing affordable and the social housing requirements vastly distort the market.

On a local basis that would definitely happen. Plus the risk that you get ghost towns when demand doesn't build fast enough and/or you get social issues from bringing in too many outsiders into an area.

The key point is that the council are a much better organisation to make that decision than a developer. They also have more leavers to pull in terms of providing support, infrastructure and employment than private developer.

 

[Wolfie]

There is no need to build tower blocks to increase housing density in most places, town houses, mansion blocks or terraces can house very large numbers of people. The vast majority of people live in urban areas in the UK and many of these are very low density compared to other countries in Europe. We could house literally hundreds of millions more people in the UK if we upped existing cities to the density of central Paris.

Here is the policy I would use:

1: We will not be re-valuing houses for council tax, you will value your property yourself. The new tax will be a % based scheme without the current regressive cut off point,
2: Be careful though because now if somebody offers to buy your house at that amount you valued it at you must accept the offer and begin a sale process.
3: Thus homeowners would be incentivised to supply a value that is close to a fair compulsory purchase value for that house.
4: We now essentially have a low paperwork compulsory purchase method which covers the whole country and a fair council tax system (even if the values are all inflated they should all be proportionally pretty similar to the underlying property value).

There would need to be protections for estates and financially unsavvy, e.g the council will estimate a value if the owner is not present, capable or the value looks very low. You wouldn't be able to compulsory purchase property from people as a means of harassment etc. There would need to be a minimum standard of property details to allow potential purchasers to assess housing value.

What this would mean is that infrastructure projects would be easier to obtain the land for and private developers would be able to buy up whole streets or areas of low density housing and re-build in higher density forms. I would include some sort of right to remain if a developer is involved so tenants or homeowners would have a preferential right to purchase or live in the new houses with the developer either having the phase the build so that they can move into a new house before theirs is demolished or extended or if this isn't possible the developer would have to house them.

Finally we need to get rid of the social housing requirements, simply building enough housing will make housing affordable and the social housing requirements vastly distort the market.



The key point is that the council are a much better organisation to make that decision than a developer. They also have more leavers to pull in terms of providing support, infrastructure and employment than private developer.

Good luck with the compatibility of forced sale of property to a private buyer and the European Convention of Human Rights.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

There is no need to build tower blocks to increase housing density in most places, town houses, mansion blocks or terraces can house very large numbers of people. The vast majority of people live in urban areas in the UK and many of these are very low density compared to other countries in Europe. We could house literally hundreds of millions more people in the UK if we upped existing cities to the density of central Paris.

Here is the policy I would use:

1: We will not be re-valuing houses for council tax, you will value your property yourself. The new tax will be a % based scheme without the current regressive cut off point,
2: Be careful though because now if somebody offers to buy your house at that amount you valued it at you must accept the offer and begin a sale process.
3: Thus homeowners would be incentivised to supply a value that is close to a fair compulsory purchase value for that house.
4: We now essentially have a low paperwork compulsory purchase method which covers the whole country and a fair council tax system (even if the values are all inflated they should all be proportionally pretty similar to the underlying property value).

There would need to be protections for estates and financially unsavvy, e.g the council will estimate a value if the owner is not present, capable or the value looks very low. You wouldn't be able to compulsory purchase property from people as a means of harassment etc. There would need to be a minimum standard of property details to allow potential purchasers to assess housing value.

What this would mean is that infrastructure projects would be easier to obtain the land for and private developers would be able to buy up whole streets or areas of low density housing and re-build in higher density forms. I would include some sort of right to remain if a developer is involved so tenants or homeowners would have a preferential right to purchase or live in the new houses with the developer either having the phase the build so that they can move into a new house before theirs is demolished or extended or if this isn't possible the developer would have to house them.

Finally we need to get rid of the social housing requirements, simply building enough housing will make housing affordable and the social housing requirements vastly distort the market.



The key point is that the council are a much better organisation to make that decision than a developer. They also have more leavers to pull in terms of providing support, infrastructure and employment than private developer.

Just because a house is worth £X doesn't mean that for that exact amount the residents should have to deal with all the complications of moving (finding new jobs, schools, doctors, dentists etc) if they don't want to

 

[Nottingham59]

Good luck with the compatibility of forced sale of property to a private buyer and the European Convention of Human Rights.

That power is aleady in the New Towns legislation. It gives a Development Corporation the power to compulsory purchase agricultural land at agricultural land prices and then redesignate for development. I understand Milton Keynes was built that way, and it made a profit for the government, even after paying for the new roads and schools and public facitiites.

 

[joieman]

That power is aleady in the New Towns legislation. It gives a Development Corporation the power to compulsory purchase agricultural land at agricultural land prices and then redesignate for development. I understand Milton Keynes was built that way, and it made a profit for the government, even after paying for the new roads and schools and public facitiites.

I think @Technologist was speaking of buying up existing properties for redevelopment.

 

[Bletchleyite]

With regard to St Neots as a New Town, there's a pretty good template for that already in existence - the expansion of Bicester from a small market town into something much bigger.

With regard to New Towns as parts of existing cities e.g. the Liverpool example, there's precedent in the 1960s New Towns for that too - for example the Commission for the New Towns was involved in expansion of Preston in the Ingol area.

 

[Magdalia]

With regard to St Neots as a New Town, there's a pretty good template for that already in existence - the expansion of Bicester from a small market town into something much bigger.

St Neots has been there and done that already.

St Neots was a London overspill town in the 1960s when it expanded eastwards from the river towards the railway. The Longsands estate and the Cromwell Road industrial area date from that period.

In recent times it has expanded east of the railway with Loves Farm next to the station and Wintringham a bit further out, pushing up against the Black Cat-Caxton Gibbet new road currently being constructed.

On the west side of Eaton Socon and Eaton Ford the A1 is effectively a barrier to further expansion, but there is also the Dennybrook proposal which is further out to the west side just over the border into Bedfordshire.

And of course there is Tempsford!

 

[Bletchleyite]

St Neots has been there and done that already.

As had Bicester, with the 1960s overspill estates. However it's since got a LOT bigger, and so could St Neots. Most significantly on the station side, it's on the edge of town and like Bicester North* could become more central.

(Your point is a bit like saying MK shouldn't happen because Bletchley has 1960s-1970s overspill estates, one of which I live in! )

* Bicester North is pretty much right in the middle of Bicester, it's the traditional centre that's offset to the east.

 

[Magdalia]

Most significantly on the station side, it's on the edge of town

St Neots station is not on the edge of town any more. Loves Farm is already there on the east side of the railway, next to the station, having been developed between 2009 and 2017. Wintringham is currently being developed, filling the triangle between the railway, the bypass and the Cambridge Road.

Here is a map of Wintringham:

Week of night closures mark end of Cambridge Road Improvement works - Wintringham

Next week will see a series of night-time road closures, which mark the final stages of the improvement works along Cambridge Road.

wintringham.org

From Monday 16 September until Friday 20 September (into Saturday morning) the road will be closed between the A428 roundabout, back to the roundabout with Bret Road for Wintringham and Stone Hill for Loves Farm. The road closures will start at 8pm and the road will reopen at 6am each day during the works.

 

[Technologist]

Good luck with the compatibility of forced sale of property to a private buyer and the European Convention of Human Rights.

On what legal basis:

ECHR include a right to property and being unfairly deprived of it. This is effectively requiring people to state a price at which they would sell an asset and then holding them to that price. Nobody is being deprived of anything.

There are plenty of examples in law where people can be compelled to sell something provided criteria are met. You would be free to price the asset as high as you wanted to discourage sale. The only thing keeping you from taking the piss is that you’d pay property tax on that declared amount. However given current rates of council tax for most people if they really didn’t want to move it would only cost them a few hundred pound a year to value their house too high for economic purchase by anyone. Is it fair that those people pay more tax, yes, liquidity in the property market is a social good so you pay less tax if you provide it.

As stated before I would have some provisions to avoid people using the system to harass others (basic conflict of interest have lots of case law), you could have provisions to stop people being made homeless and also provisions around the ability to purchase equivalent property.

The last provision would have the effect of limiting the process to places where there is a liquid housing market like a city or large town. I'd regulate the above with an ombudsmen and if it goes to court I'd limit the homeowners exposure to costs in most circumstances.

The inspiration for this is system is actually Finish folk racing where to control costs each category has a minimum sale price. You can buy your opponents car (minus safety kit) off them for a set amount, this discourages anyone from spending more (or close to) that amount on the car to gain an advantage as your opposition would just buy the car.

The other inspiration for this is Rory Sutherland who proposed something similar (without the council tax linked element) from the observation that a surprisingly large amount of people will sell their house if someone make a cold approach to them. Given the average house price is £300,000 if the average person priced their house 30% above market this would be a windfall of £90,000 minus moving costs.

 

[Meerkat]

That power is aleady in the New Towns legislation. It gives a Development Corporation the power to compulsory purchase agricultural land at agricultural land prices and then redesignate for development. I understand Milton Keynes was built that way, and it made a profit for the government, even after paying for the new roads and schools and public facitiites.

It’s very dubious for the government to buy land at low prices and make a profit on it.
Any end profit should go to the original landowner.
I would prefer a structure for land banking that enabled/forced landowners to group together to create bigger scale and better planning.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

It’s very dubious for the government to buy land at low prices and make a profit on it.
Any end profit should go to the original landowner.

That doesn't make sense, imagine if you sold your house to someone, they upgraded it and sold it again, why should you deserve their profit?

How is it "dubious" to buy something at the price it's worth, increase it's value and then sell it, that's how manufacturing and many businesses work.

 

[renegademaster]

That doesn't make sense, imagine if you sold your house to someone, they upgraded it and sold it again, why should you deserve their profit?

How is it "dubious" to buy something at the price it's worth, increase it's value and then sell it, that's how manufacturing and many businesses work.

The argument from the farmer would be that if it was as easy for him to get planning permission he would have flogged it to barrets ages ago

 

[HSTEd]

The argument from the farmer would be that if it was as easy for him to get planning permission he would have flogged it to barrets ages ago

If it was easy to get planning permission then he wouldn't make any significant amount of money from selling it to Barrett because the value of planning permission would collapse to nearly zero.

The value of agricultural land is very small compared to the rest of the country - which is why farming is no longer a significant sector in the economy.
If the artificial planning gain in value was eliminated by making planning permission easy to get, then the value of housing would fall drastically.

Since large scale planning reform is politically impossible because of this issue, the only feasible option I can see is it to buy up land and use parliamentary supremacy to grant planning permission on it.