The locations are:
- A standalone settlement in Adlington, Cheshire East - existing station but Green Belt
- A corridor of development in South Gloucestershire, across Brabazon and the West Innovation Arc – new station Autumn 2026
- A development bringing together Chase Park and Crews Hill in Enfield, north London – existing station but Green Belt
- Redevelopment of the former airbase at Heyford Park in Cherwell, Oxfordshire – station reopening proposed at Ardley, already on our opportunities list, but not within walking distance of whole development
- An urban development in the South Bank area of Leeds – near Leeds station
- New homes in Victoria North, on the edge of Manchester city centre – near Manchester Victoria station
- A standalone settlement at Marlcombe, East Devon – nearest station Digby & Sowton is too far away, no scope for anything closer
- A renewal of Milton Keynes city centre and an expansion of its periphery, alongside a new mass transit system – light rail?
- Densified development in Plymouth – maybe 30 tower blocks, not necessarily within walking distance of station
- A new settlement in Tempsford, Bedfordshire – new station proposed on ECML and EWR, already on our list of opportunities
- A riverside settlement in Thamesmead, south-east London – proposed extension of Docklands Light Railway
- Expanded development around Worcestershire Parkway railway station – existing station
This shows that the government is serious about delivering housing with access to jobs, and will fund rail development that is needed to support significant housing development.
The list is based on development proposals already in progress. The locations are not evenly distributed around the country - none are in the areas which the property website Zoopla identified as financially unviable for property development (mostly in the north of England). Some locations are adding development to existing towns or cities, so that community services may be overloaded, and either the new houses are not in easy reach of a station in the centre of the town, or there is an extra cost to bring new rail infrastructure to the centre of the town.
These limitations are the result of the existing system of developers building wherever they can get planning permission. To meet the government’s housing targets, more locations with access to jobs to sustain our economy must be found. Only a robust strategic planning process, combining land use with transport planning, can deliver enough cost-effective housing, supported by an integrated transport network for the future.
However, complaints from developers about any change in the planning process, additional regulation or requirements for on and off site amenities - eg solar panels on new builds – are as predictable as the sun rising in the morning and setting at night. While there is little elasticity in, and continual upward pressure on, materials and labour costs for the physical aspects of building, there is still huge elasticity for green field sites in the uplift from agricultural land values to that with permission for building. A robust planning system would respond to developer complaints about affordability – and so the viability of developments in marginal areas - with "if you paid too much for the land that's your problem".
There can be genuine issues on very industrial brownfield where the mitigation costs - or at least the risk of variability of mitigation costs - can genuinely cause some brownfield sites to have a negative land value from a developer perspective (which is where funding to organisations like Combined Authorities is supposed to come in, to remediate those sites facilitating development). Another way to make those brownfield sites more viable would be to make green field more expensive by being more robust about how much developers need to fund associated supporting infrastructure.
For the planning system to be more robust about the extent of on and off site infrastructure a developer needs to provide or fund, and for those requirements to be defensible through the planning process, a good evidence base is needed. The new DfT connectivity tool could be used for this purpose if planning officers were minded to do so. It looks at a range of amenities, such as jobs, education, health, shopping etc and generates a score - new development proposals could be scored through this tool and developers required to add extra amenities - or proposals be rejected if they are not well enough connected. The DfT tool scores connectivity by mode - car, walk, bike, public transport - and gives an 'overall' score for a location which combines active and public transport but excludes car, so leans strongly into sustainable connectivity for which rail can play a huge part when it comes to access to jobs.
This process must be applied consistently by planning officers across wide enough areas so that there isn't a postcode lottery, and to have enough policy 'mass' to defend it through appeals etc - ie it should be a function for strategic planning authorities (who still need to coordinate nationally, but need to tailor local policy to local needs). Applying the tool at large scale would also make the policy more immune to political electoral cycles - otherwise developers might be minded to just sit and wait for a more favourable local district council.
Given the long timescales in planning, moving the goalposts in a substantial way must be clearly signposted to developers so it can be built into their cost expectations at an early stage. It would be a very unreasonable to move the goalposts in a big way on sites that developers have purchased and are ready to build on.
Letchworth was the world’s first Garden City. There are separate housing, industrial and commercial zones, providing homes with access to jobs and community services. The first station was opened in 1903, the same year that the town started to be built – strategic planning in action to provide connectivity! Letchworth The Station Photo Postcard Pre 1914, in public domain, via Wikimedia.
The viability of new developments can be improved both by including both housing and employment sites to increase property values, as the original new towns did, and potentially by using lower-cost factory-built homes.
It takes a lot of housing to pay for a proper transport infrastructure, providing the full set of non-car options including rail. So the new Combined Authorities must recognise the value of strategic planning, and the value of connectivity - and the value of evaluating it in a robust way.
Expert Taskforce recommends locations for new towns – Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government announcement
Building new homes not financially viable across half of England - Zoopla press release
Green light for over 50 road and rail upgrades supporting over 39,000 new homes and 42,000 jobs - Government announcement
Missing Links
New stations