As a former town planning policy adviser to both Tony Blair and David Cameron, I have only one question about Labour’s proposed new towns: who will benefit from the significant increase in land value arising from granting planning permission for them (Labour will aim to reveal new town sites within first year in power, 20 May)?
Postwar new town legislation forced landowners to sell land to the state at the existing use value. The surplus from the later resale of the land at market prices paid for infrastructure and affordable housing. Angela Rayner gave no suggestion that Labour would deploy such heavy artillery. But if it does, it would be well advised not to announce new town locations until it has control of the land, “grey belt” or otherwise.
Alternatively, existing tools such as planning obligations and community infrastructure levies could be used to tax this value out of the hands of the landowner beneficiaries, with the proceeds spent locally. These raise £7bn annually across England, mostly in areas under the biggest housing pressure. They could raise much more, helping to pay for the high-quality places that Labour wants, and which neighbouring communities will demand as the price of consent.
One thing is certain. Neither the Treasury nor local authorities can afford a new town policy unless it is accompanied, from the start, by a credible and preferably pre-emptive land value capture strategy of some sort.
Miles Gibson
London
• Labour’s housebuilding plans fail to address the reality of what England needs: whoever sits in No 10 after the election must ensure that new homes are accessible and inclusive for everyone.
Given our ageing population and increased rates of disability, the accessibility of new homes will be a critical aspect of development, be that in new towns or city brownfield sites. With one in four people reporting a disability, and the unmet demand for accessible homes, this is one element of the housing crisis that the next government cannot afford to ignore.
Accessible homes offer a foundation for better health, independence and community participation. Homes built to accessible and adaptable standards provide ease of living for everyone and transform the lives and health of older and disabled people. Being easily adapted, they are a sustainable choice by default, helping to achieve net zero targets.
Currently, only 9% of homes in England meet basic accessibility standards, leaving thousands of disabled people “making do” in homes that don’t meet their needs. The English Housing Survey indicates 400,000 wheelchair users are living in homes that have not been designed nor adapted to meet their needs.
Addressing the accessible housing challenge makes good economic sense. Habinteg’s recent research, with LSE, highlights that the benefits of building accessible homes outweigh the costs. Building a wheelchair-accessible home for a working-age adult costs about £22,000 more than an average home, but provides benefits worth approximately £94,000 over 10 years. Benefits include reduced health and social care costs, and increased return to the exchequer with more people able to work. Homes are not just buildings, but catalysts for thriving, inclusive communities. By setting higher standards now, we can build a healthier society. To not do so, risks a deepening housing crisis.
Christina McGill
Director of social impact and external affairs, Habinteg Housing Association
• Labour’s new town programme appears to rely on housing developers. It would be a mistake to repeat the model of new town development corporations between 1946 and 1992. My own role in Milton Keynes as social development officer between 1972 and 1988 taught me the following lessons.
Local government should be an equal partner with central government and given the resources to be so; taking the opportunity, for example, to provide new ways of developing state personal and community services that could benefit the whole country.
The role of the private sector is equally important, but the planning structure of development should not be in its hands. Land ownership is the key, and should not be left to speculation and private profit. Compulsory purchase for new development was agreed by the second world war coalition. It allowed the profits from development to justify social provision, for example, and should be restored.
The essential participation of the voluntary sector, through existing and new residents, should be resourced through core funding to their organisations, to initiate new and evolving services and activities and not merely funding to carry out the plans of central or local government or the preferences of the charitable sector.
Milton Keynes was assured of central government interdepartmental cooperation to build a town of 250,000 people. It never happened.
Development corporations were charged with creating jobs as well as houses. The economic future of the UK could benefit from the opportunity that new towns provide to entrepreneurs from both the state and private sector.
Peter Waterman
Milton Keynes
• Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
