26
Examination of witnesses
Matthew Pennycook, Joanna Key and Lise-Anne Boissiere.
Q138 The Chair: Good morning and welcome to what will, I think, be the last public session of the House of Lords Built Environment Select Committee. We are absolutely delighted, and it is appropriate, that we have the relevant Minister before us to talk about new towns, which we have been looking at as part of our inquiry into new towns and expanded settlements. We are here today to speak to the Minister and ask questions that we have been covering, over the past 10 or so weeks, with various witnesses both in written submissions and before us in this committee.
First, I thank the Minister for making time today; we genuinely appreciate it. You are one of the busiest Ministers in the Government, I am sure. We would also like to thank your team, which is here supporting from your private office in the department: Joanna Key and Lise-Anne Boissiere. Thank you very much for being here. Minister, I do not know whether you would like to just say a few words at the outset about where you see the new towns programme and the expanded settlements. We can then open it up to questions. Thank you again for being here.
Matthew Pennycook: My pleasure—thank you for giving us the opportunity to come and give evidence to you as part of this inquiry. Briefly, in terms of some opening remarks, which will hopefully set the scene, the post-war new towns programme was obviously the most ambitious town-building effort ever undertaken in the UK. It transformed the lives of millions of working people by giving them affordable and well-designed homes in well-planned and beautiful surroundings, and the 32 communities it created are now home to many millions of people.
The Government are absolutely committed to investing in their regeneration, but we are equally determined to take forward the next generation of new towns. That is why, as you will know, we established the independent New Towns Taskforce last year. We set it the task of making recommendations to the Deputy Prime Minister and myself as to suitable locations for large-scale new communities and how they should be best delivered, with the objective of supporting and unlocking economic growth as well as making a significant contribution to meeting housing demand in England over the medium to long term.
Again, as you will know, the Taskforce published an interim report in February providing an update on its work and setting out the high-level vision and aims of the programme, as well as the unique benefits that it would deliver and the lessons learned from a comprehensive review of the three phases of the post-war new towns programme. The final report will be handed to the department this summer, and the Government will publish it alongside our response within a sensible timeframe.
Finally, I hope you can appreciate that I will not speculate today on what the Taskforce’s recommendations might be, in terms of either locations or financing and delivery, but we look forward to discussing here this morning the Government’s ambitions for the programme and to giving you as much context as we can at this point in time.
The Chair: Thank you for that update, Minister. I appreciate your comment about the summer. I will not push too much but, in terms of the department receiving it and there being a response from the Government, what do you see being in that response? Will it have all the details—including on financing, structures and any necessary legislation—and to what extent will it supplement what you have asked the task force to look at?
Matthew Pennycook: That is a very fair question. The final report will, as you rightly said, be handed to the department this summer. The Government will then publish it alongside our response within a sensible timeframe. We have no reason to hold back our response and the report; we want it out there as soon as possible.
It is appropriate that the Taskforce’s report is published alongside our response so that the Government can make it very clear whether we have agreed to proceed with, for example, all of the recommended locations or just some; and how we intend to take forward the sites that we agree on in terms of financing and delivery. It will respond in part to the recommendations made. As I said, we are expecting detailed thoughts from the Taskforce on not only locations but, for example, the most appropriate delivery mechanisms, both in general terms and, I hope, specifically for individual recommended sites and financing mechanisms. It will then be for the Government to add extra detail and our intended way forward off the back of those responses.
The Chair: Some of us saw your appearance only a few days ago before the Commons Select Committee—do not worry; this is a much more civilised affair—but I wonder whether I could push you slightly.
You said the other day that, when you have the report and the Taskforce has submitted what it perceives to be the best cases going forward, there may be circumstances where, although you accept what it has said, you may not accept some of those locations as things the Government will take forward. Equally, you may well do, so I am not going to speculate where you see that threshold, but that must mean that the Government are looking at it through a slightly different lens—perhaps a more political lens—in terms of what is practical and realistic, hence why you will then say, “Well, these are the ones we will proceed with”. Does that mean that there is, I do not know, a spreadsheet or a guideline that you work to when you assess what the Taskforce sets out? The reason I ask this is that it must be different, or supplements and is in addition, to what you have asked the Taskforce to look at.
Matthew Pennycook: Again, that is a very fair question; I will bring in Joanna and Lise-Anne to add something to what I will say. A number of factors will impact on our decision as to how to proceed, not least the spending review settlement and what that allows the Government to do.
In one scenario, we may be able to say to the Taskforce that we accept all of its recommended sites and intend to take them forward in one form or another, but that will be over a fairly long time period. However, without speculating too much, there may be a scenario where we say, “We don’t actually think that X site on the list is appropriate so we don’t intend to take it forward”. All of that will be set out in the Government’s response.
As I say, my hope—because I know about the huge amount of work that the Taskforce is putting into it—is that we will be able to say, in principal terms, we accept the full report’s recommendations. However, as you will understand, we need to retain a degree of flexibility if there are reasons why we do not think it appropriate that a site is taken forward or if, subsequent to the report being handed to us, other information arises that means we cannot take a particular site forward. My understanding is that Homes England is doing some due diligence work alongside the Taskforce as it is finalising its report at present.
Q139 The Chair: In our inquiry, a lot of people have said that some new towns may not start within this Parliament, although some may; I am sure that you have heard and accept this. Therefore, there is an element of this being genuinely long-term planning, which is perhaps behind some of the rationale for slightly separating it from the 1.5 million homes target as well.
In the course of that, a lot of people have said that what new towns need, therefore, is some sort of overall purpose and vision. The Government set out what that purpose and vision is from the outset. I have heard the Government talk about the housing need and it being a genuine aspect of growth. Can you say now, “Each town will do X and the purpose of each new town will be X”, or do you see it as something that is slightly organic and that depends, perhaps, on the locality of each new town?
Matthew Pennycook: The Taskforce’s terms of reference, the remit and the very clear signals that the Government gave to Sir Michael and all of the members—in terms of what we are looking for the Taskforce to deliver in determining which sites are the most appropriate locations across the country—are all in the public domain. Its remit is to make a sustainable and significant contribution to housing growth in England over the medium to long term and to unlock economic growth; that is deliberately one of the factors that we have asked it to look at. Generally, in terms of the contribution to housing demand in the round—we can go into the 1.5 million new homes and the interaction with the standard method and LHN; I am sure that the committee will want to raise that—the contribution to housing growth over the coming years is well understood.
It is worth saying a couple of things on economic growth. In and of itself, the creation of large-scale new communities, particularly in high affordability pressure areas where labour mobility is currently constrained, the delivery of these new settlements will boost economic growth and expand opportunities. I remind the committee—I know that you have been looking at this—that we were explicit that we fully expect some to come forward as stand-alone greenfield sites but, in many other cases, we are expecting the Taskforce to have identified urban extensions and urban regeneration projects. It is also the case that, in relation to any new towns that take the form of urban extensions, we will support cities to realise their full economic potential where, at the moment, they cannot grow or they cannot grow sensibly to accommodate workforces and new growth opportunities. We estimate that unlocking the growth potential of core UK cities to match European cities, by enabling people to live and work in key areas of expansion, could see productivity increase by up to 4%.
Then, obviously, there are the wider economic benefits that will come from construction activity, as well as the related supply chain operations, but we have been clear with the Taskforce: we want housing growth and economic growth not only from construction activity directly but in the parts of the country where interventions of this type are most suitable.
The Chair: When the Government respond to the number of new towns that the Taskforce proposes, will you say in the response, “This is what we are aiming to achieve with each one”—an overall vision, if you like? Is that something the Government will do?
Matthew Pennycook: Again, I am loathe to speculate exactly what will be in the Government’s response. We need to see the final report and take stock of it; we want to do that in a timely fashion, as I have said. You can expect that we will respond to each of the locations proposed with a clear sense of what the Government expect if we agree to take forward a proposed site—that is, what we expect each location to deliver in terms of economic growth opportunities and housing contribution.
You will have seen from the nature of the call for evidence, for example, that part of the information that came with those bids—and part of the expressions of interest that were put into the call for evidence—were clear asks of us to consider particular sites on the basis that they have economic potential as well as potential to meet housing demand.
Joanna Key: May I add one thing to what the Minister said? The interim report had 10 place-making principles against which the Taskforce judged applications that came before it. The first of those was vision led, so the Taskforce itself decided that vision for a place was an incredibly important criteria against which it judged those proposals. I assume that it will base its recommendations on those places having a vision for their development.
The Chair: You mentioned local housing targets earlier, Minister; I know that they came up in the Commons Select Committee the other day. Do you see the 1.5 million target as competing with new towns, or do you see it all as complementary? Your job description online lists about 12 things in your portfolio, such as brownfield sites and social housing—all hugely important. Where do you see new towns and expanded settlements sitting in your inbox?
Matthew Pennycook: The general starter point—this goes back to the thinking that we did in opposition—is that, as much as you can drive a response to the desperate need for houses of all tenures in most parts of the country through the local planning system, LHN and targets, such is the mismatch between supply and demand that we cannot meet need in the round, certainly over a longer time period, without going beyond the local and without government taking an active role in bringing forward large-scale new communities. So this sits alongside the other drive for housebuilding through local plans and the LHN numbers that we have given as part of the revised NPPF.
As I made clear to the Commons committee just the other day, when it comes to planning and housing targets and how the new towns programme interacts with those, largely because many of these new towns will not start building out in this Parliament—certainly not at any scale—it has to date been the Government’s position that the contribution that new towns make to housing demand and housing needs should be over and above LHN, but we are keeping that under review. I say that specifically because, although we will ultimately take decisions in the national interest, wherever possible, we want local communities and local partners to welcome any new towns that we select. There is an interaction here with LHN. Many local areas have said to us, “We think there are sites in our locality where lots of our LHN and housing targets, perhaps cross-boundary, can be absorbed”. As I say, we ultimately want decisions in the national interest but we want local communities to have buy-in wherever possible, so we are keeping that under review.
That is partly because of the sequencing of how things will come forward. We expect to see our housing targets—through the revised NPPF, which we published on 12 December last year—rolled out in local plans as we boost coverage. They are primarily to drive housing delivery in this Parliament, although we want to ensure that they are sustainable in Parliaments going forward. We can come to delivery scales more generally but the nature of some, if not all, of these locations will be that, if they start in this Parliament, they will probably make small contributions in the final year rather than adding huge numbers to our targets in this Parliament.
Q140 Baroness Andrews: Good morning. I apologise for not being with you in person. My questions follow on neatly from the discussion that we have just heard. You, Minister, started by talking about the post-war plans for new towns and what a national vision that was. One of the questions that we have been asking witnesses is whether they think that there is, and will be, a clear and visible drive behind the new towns, which are disparate, scattered and with several purposes, in order to make it absolutely predictable that they will be delivered. The evidence has been a bit conflicted: some people have said firmly that there should be a single Minister and department with responsibility, with a champion held accountable for delivering this, but others have been less certain. So, my first question is: what will be the delivery mechanism, as far as the Government are concerned, bearing in mind that you have already addressed the long-term issues in getting the programme driven through?
Related to that is my second question—there is much more consensus here—which covers the challenge of co-ordinating the multiple services, infrastructures and social infrastructures that will be necessary to deliver practically on the ground. There has been serious concern as to how this co-ordination is likely to be managed and predictable—that is, where the risks are and what the Government would do to address them—and whether that relates, in fact, to whether somebody should be in charge of all this, making sure not only that the Governments are co-ordinated but that the sequencing is right, the commitment is there and the practical work is being done at the official and political levels.
Matthew Pennycook: Thank you for those questions. I will make a couple of comments then bring in my officials to add anything I have missed.
First, we could not have been clearer that the whole of government stands behind our vision for a next generation of new towns and that, by their very nature, they will involve significant government support; in some ways, that is what will distinguish them from other forms of large-scale housing intervention. I want to make the point—not least to those who put into the call for evidence sites that the Taskforce may not identify as the most appropriate locations—that there is no reason why other locations falling outside of the programme cannot be taken forward through other mechanisms and with government support of some kind. In responding to the Taskforce, we expect to identify a set of sites that the Taskforce and the independent experts on it have told us are the most appropriate for intervention; the Government will stand behind those in a serious way.
On delivery, again, I emphasise that the final decisions on delivery vehicles for new towns will not be taken until we have the Taskforce’s final report and recommendations; that makes it quite difficult to give evidence to you at this point in time. Once we have those, we will respond to them. It is a reasonable expectation that the Taskforce will recommend that development corporations should be used in most, if not all, cases. Having not had the final report or the final recommendations it will contain, I do not want to say definitively that that will be the case, but it is a reasonable expectation that development corporations will be the preferred vehicle.
Sir Michael has made it clear to me that the Taskforce has heard the importance of having for each new town, a single accountable delivery body that will endure for the whole life of its delivery. Although the exact governance structures of new towns will depend on the type of delivery mechanism, development corporation—if that is what is advised—or other delivery body established for each location, we are conscious of that being put in place. It is a reasonable and slightly open question at this point as to whether there is another point of accountability in government for the programme, but I am the Minister directly responsible for the programme; that is why I am answering questions from you today. I expect to remain so, as the Minister for Housing and Planning; the DPM is also closely involved in supporting my work in this area.
Baroness Andrews: Thank you for that. What you have just said about the distinction you draw, in this programme being separate from the development of housing in general, is important. Would you be happy to be described as the Minister for new towns so that anyone who has a grievance or an ambition can come to you and say, “Minister, you are now responsible. Can we tell you that we think there is a bit of a hazard in this particular new town”? Clearly, people want to be able to go to the person in government who will listen.
Matthew Pennycook: Lord Gascoigne clearly referenced the responsibilities that are set out on the website in terms of what I am responsible for as the Minister of State for Housing and Planning. I already get, and expect to continue to get, correspondence on new towns. We can come on to the interactions that we have had with the Taskforce but I receive regular updates from Sir Michael—often joined by his deputy, Dame Kate Barker—on the general progress of the work that they are undertaking, some themes that are emerging and some issues around the call for evidence. I know, in general terms, from the amount of work they are doing, that all of the challenges associated with any particular location are exactly what they are working through in determining the final list of sites that they think are the most appropriate and feasible for delivery. In many cases, one of the factors we have asked them to give serious thought to is delivery in this Parliament, as one of their considerations going forward.
Baroness Andrews: Let me move on slightly. We have some things that will make things easier for spatial policy-making and will promote a sort of co-ordination that has not been possible before, but there will still be concerns around the source of local services. One of the examples we were given by one local government witness—it was Northstowe, I think—was that it had everything set up, including a health centre, but it could not find doctors to staff the health centre. So there is a mismatch, which you can anticipate, between having the structures there and not having the co-ordination and thinking ahead—particularly in relation to health services—on how you staff your new structures. Do you feel confident that health, which is a particularly important thing for these new communities, will be able to be planned in parallel, proactively, with the planning of the housing and community benefits and so on? Are you happy that that will happen?
Matthew Pennycook: I am confident that that will happen. Veering off the topic slightly, we are taking steps in general terms across housing planning to ensure that, when it comes to things like the existing developer contribution system, we can be assured that it is operating sufficiently and that we are getting contributions to ensure that the right infrastructure is coming forward. That is a complicated piece of work. There are co-ordination issues as well as issues in the delivery of—to take that example—primary care centres and the workforce that comes with those.
I would then make a more general point. In preparing for the Taskforce’s final report being handed to us, we have had lots of conversations across government to make this very clear and to ask for buy-in from individual departments to deliver the large-scale new settlements that come forward. We absolutely need the buy-in of many government departments to deliver these in the way we want.
On the broad principles, we have been clear from the outset, including in the Written Ministerial Statement that I issued last October, that the next generation of new towns—we will have failed if we do not get this right; I want to be very clear and honest about that—must be well connected, well designed, sustainable and attractive places where people want to live, and they must have all of the right infrastructure, amenities and services that are necessary to sustain thriving communities. That runs through the heart of the interim report and the 10 place-making principles that the Taskforce has identified. We might touch on it, but it has got right some of the lessons of the post-war programme where, for example, not enough attention was given to the long-term stewardship of those communities. So it is looking at all of those aspects, but we are very clear about what we want to see.
In the Government’s response, you will see that contextualised by place in terms of what we specifically hope those place-based interventions will deliver—we have touched on economic and growth opportunities—but those are our principles and, as I say, they run through the Taskforce’s work and the place-making principles that it has already identified. We fully expect all of that to come through, along with the delivery and funding mechanisms in each case, to ensure that that happens.
Baroness Andrews: That is really good to hear. My final question is more about the current political situation in relation to local government; this may come up in relation to relationships with development corporations. We are clearly facing a situation where planning responsibilities are changing, with the creation of single-tier authorities; there are a lot of moving parts here. Also, those new single-tier authorities will have different sorts of, and more, planning powers. Our witnesses have been clear that there is a fear that, in the anxiety to get all of this done, there will be a real issue around sequencing in terms of who is responsible for what; whether there will be sufficient stability in the system as these powers are created or transferred; and whether, in the mix of trying to get this done at a time when things are changing contextually, there is a risk of things falling down a hole in the middle.
Matthew Pennycook: I appreciate the risks that you have identified. There is a separate conversation to be had about the interaction between local government reorganisation, the introduction of cross-boundary mechanisms for strategic planning and what all of that does to housebuilding delivery.
This is a slightly separate question from the new towns programme in the sense that development corporations—if they are the vehicle that the Taskforce identifies in most locations—will have their own governance structures. There will be a single point of accountability for who delivers and oversees that development corporation: the designated oversight authority. Whether it is the Secretary of State in the form of a centrally led development corporation, the appropriate mayor or a local authority, there will be that designated oversight authority for delivery, but, again, it depends on the delivery mechanism—that is, whether it is a development corporation and, if it is, what type it is. It will be for the relevant oversight authority to ensure that each development corporation is appropriately transparent and accountable.
I reinforce my previous point: the Government will stand behind each of these interventions in a serious way, providing that support. Again, I am straying into the slightly hypothetical, but I cannot see—it would be fundamentally at odds with the vision for the programme that we have set out—us handing responsibility to a single local authority with no government support and asking it to take forward the implementation of a new town. That is simply not what we are aiming for here.
Q141 Viscount Younger of Leckie: On the back of the earlier questions from Lord Gascoigne and Baroness Andrews, I want to probe a little further on locations. You said that Homes England is doing some due diligence. Is that coming directly into you or into Sir Michael? Linked to that, say the report produced the 11 locations and, as you hinted, you did not like some of them or they were not appropriate. Is the suggestion that Homes England would produce further ideas so that, at the end of the day, you would ramp up to 11 if the 11 from Sir Michael’s report did not meet your approval?
Matthew Pennycook: I do not think I mentioned 11.
Viscount Younger of Leckie: Maybe it was 10.
Matthew Pennycook: Maybe you have been leaked a copy of the final report.
Viscount Younger of Leckie: I wish.
Matthew Pennycook: I do not know the number, although that is probably in the ballpark of what the Taskforce will have identified as the manageable number for the Government to consider in issuing their response. I will bring Lise-Anne and Jo in on the due diligence, but we have provided the Taskforce with official support and Homes England support it needs to draw on that commercial expertise to do its work. Homes England is supporting the Taskforce—not directly through us—in looking at due diligence and asking, “Are there any issues arising here that would make problematic your recommendation of a particular location?” I will bring my officials in on that point.
A related part of your question, which I touched on earlier, is that we had more than 100 sites sent into the department as part of the call for evidence. It is entirely feasible, and it is my expectation, that a huge number of those sites, while not particularly appropriate for the new towns programme, will nevertheless be suitable locations for development—in some cases, large-scale development, though perhaps not of 10,000 or more homes; there may be some 10,000-plus potential sites in that call for evidence—to happen.
The point I want to emphasise is that there is no reason for local areas not to take forward those sites themselves or through strategic planning boards sub-regions, which now have a requirement to publish their own spatial development strategies. They can say, “They’re still appropriate large-scale sites for us to absorb lots of our housing demand and need—our LHN numbers—but they sit slightly outside what the Government can offer as part of this programme, in terms of the significant government support that will be put behind the sites that are identified and agreed”.
Lise-Anne Boissiere: I do not think that there is anything to add in terms of the due diligence picture. As you say, it is supporting the Taskforce’s work. Obviously, on receipt of the report, we would have further conversations with Homes England in terms of its assessment of the sites so that we can follow up and probe any questions that are raised.
Q142 Lord Porter of Spalding: Seriously, thank you for coming; it is really important for us to get underneath the thinking behind the thinking. You are probably in the unique space of having everybody wanting you to do a brilliant job with this because it is so important for everybody. I am not sure that we all get to march to the same drum beat in politics too often, but this is one of those times.
I have been handed the finance questions. That is really odd because me and money are not that well acquainted; I am not really sure how it works. I started off with a prejudiced view about whether this stands or falls on the basis that the Treasury has to be front and centre, along with the Government’s commitment to doing this. We have seen some numbers on what is in scope for the department to play with be bandied about, but how much of the £100 million that we have just taken off seven interested developers will be apportioned to this agenda? Will you be able to marshal all of the central government resource that is available into this space then tell those communities, “No, we really are behind this”?
Your comments about the others that are not in the 10 still being good places to come forward is reassuring because they imply to me—and to my colleagues, I am sure—that the Government are going to stand fully behind these 10, with all the things you can marshal, and that the others can fit in. I will ask some other questions—they are a bit more interesting than whether the Treasury is interested—but this must be our starting point.
Matthew Pennycook: That is absolutely fair. Again, I am loathe to speculate too much. I can well imagine a world in which we are handed a list of recommended sites. I hope that we will be able to say, “We’ve had a look at the recommendations and we think they are all appropriate sites”. We may well—again, without speculating—say, “We can’t take them all forward straightaway, but we’re going to take a subset of the recommended sites forward straightaway”. That is where it becomes very much a question of, “Let’s see what the sites are and what the recommended delivery vehicle and funding mechanism that the Taskforce has identified is”, because the funding required for each new town will vary according to the needs of the place. We will then look at what support the Government can provide specifically out of our spending review allocation.
Let me break this down and respond on the £100 million that the CMA has identified and requested that those housebuilders pay. You are absolutely right: that will be processed through the affordable homes programme’s social and affordable grant funding. It is absolutely the case that the new towns will draw on that £39-billion, 10-year grant funding programme for social and affordable housing to the extent that they need that specific grant funding. So, existing government programmes will support, but, post the spending review, we are looking at extra government support.
Putting it as plainly as I can, we will have to cut our cloth in terms of which sites and how we advance them, but that will all be set out in the Government’s response in terms of how we intend to take forward those recommendations. Is there anything to add, Joanna?
Joanna Key: Obviously, I echo that completely; the only thing I would add is on the flavours of spending, if you like, especially in the initial set-up phase of the development corporation, if it is a development corporation. Quite a lot of that money will be on the relevant studies—the red lines, the master planning, et cetera. Subsequent to that will be more capital infrastructure, if that is required, to get the new settlement to expand and to have the right kind of infrastructure and public services provision, which Baroness Andrews referred to earlier. So there is also a phasing and timing thing with the different pots of money.
The other thing I want to say is that the post-war new towns were set up, in essence, on the basis of loans. They were not necessarily all given a capital grant; it was a mix of different flavours of funding and drew on funding available across government, as the Minister said, for health, transport and other infrastructure provisions. This is a hard question to answer until you have decided which locations you want to proceed with because, obviously, they will have different needs, but the point is that you can draw on many different sources and flavours of money to get things off the ground.
Matthew Pennycook: On a related point, it is worth saying that we are in a very different world than we were when we took forward the post-war wave of new towns. Many things have changed, not least the many decades of the financialisation of housing, making it a very different proposition. I throw that in so that, in the committee’s and the public’s minds, there is an expectation around what these things look like. Part of the Taskforce’s remit is to consider stand-alone greenfield sites of the type that everyone imagines when they think of a new town, but, because we are in a changed world, we specifically gave it the remit to look at urban regeneration and urban extension opportunities, as well as different funding mechanisms.
We might come on to this but, when we have been looking at this as a department—the Taskforce has been doing a lot of work on what lessons have been drawn post war; they are in the interim report—we have learned that we are in a very different world than we were in taking some of these large-scale new communities forward.
Lord Porter of Spalding: As a committee, we have got to that place as well. The Treasury is totemic in this: it needs to be seen to stand front and centre, but it does not have to be the one who writes all the cheques; that seems fair from the evidence that we have received. What the Treasury’s involvement does is give people certainty, which allows you then to leverage in quite a lot of patient capital and other types of finance products that will really make this stuff fly, if it goes right. It does not all have to be taxpayers’ pounds.
Matthew Pennycook: No. Let me be really clear: private investment will play a significant role in the development of this new towns programme. We are expecting specific recommendations from the Taskforce in that area, but, as part of the engagement work that we have been doing alongside Sir Michael and the Taskforce, we have met investors throughout the year to engage with them and test their interest in investing in the programme. As you say, they want to know—quite rightly—that the Government are standing behind the programme, about which, I can assure you, there is no doubt. It will be very evident in the Government’s response, that this is a whole-of-government initiative and ambition; and that the Government will stand behind the sites we agree.
Lord Porter of Spalding: That is important for some of us because, although we wish you really well, I also wish that there was a different colour of people running this when it is delivered on the ground. It is important that everybody buys into this agenda politically so that the private sector money has certainty that we will not go in one direction then lurch off somewhere else.
Matthew Pennycook: To strike a similarly bipartisan note, individual Members of Parliament—not Peers, actually—have either shown expressions of interest in particular locations, raised concerns about particular locations or raised the issue of the interaction with housing targets. No one has said to me, rightly, that we should not be looking at a next generation of new towns. Even when we were developing the concept as something we really needed to get serious about in opposition, I remember a debate that David Davis, the Member for Haltemprice and Howden—I hope I have the title of his constituency right; it may have changed—held to call for this. So I think that there is support across the House for the initiative. No one is taking issue with the principle that it is a sensible thing to do for the Government to look to stand behind new large-scale settlements in England.
Lord Porter of Spalding: That is very reassuring. I come to the last bit of the money questions.
For some of us, it is blindingly obvious, but, if you take that power of a red pen and put it around a nice green field, all a sudden, the green field goes from worth growing crops on to worth growing houses on. There is a huge uplift in that. Are you confident that they will be able to capture the immediate land value? Probably more important for the next 20 or 30 years are the light pink lines that sit around a red line, where you can start to grow a new town into what will be a fully blown new town. Is there a planned mechanism to allow the state to capture at least a chunk of that? I would not want you to rob the people who currently own the land—I am a Conservative; I believe, obviously, that they are entitled to get some uplift out of it—but do you have a vision that allows everybody to know that, for the next 30 years, we will have a cascade of red lines going out and a big chunk of that money will then come back to the new towns project? Without that power of the red pen, those are still fields that just grow crops.
Matthew Pennycook: That is the opportunity here: to properly and comprehensively master plan land assembly and, therefore, drive the outcomes that Baroness Andrews asked about, in terms of infrastructure and amenities, by doing things in a different way.
You referenced the evidence I previously gave to the Common Select Committee, where we had a long discussion on various elements of land value capture and viability. We specifically asked the Taskforce to explore the role of land value capture as part of its work. I do not know what it will say. We did not give it any specific funding or land value capture mechanisms to test; we have left it for the Taskforce and its expertise to say what it thinks the appropriate tools that we should be drawing on are, as well as what the best way to proceed for specific locations is. Again, we will wait to see what the final report says about that, but we have asked the Taskforce to consider that specific point.
Q143 Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: You are very welcome; it is nice to see you. I am going to look at scale and demographics, which we can perhaps deal with sequentially. On scale, the Government said that the unifying principle will be that each of the new settlements will contain at least 10,000 homes; although you say that you expect the successful ones to build out on that, over time, the aim was 10,000 homes. Many of our witnesses have been rather critical of that in terms of both the lack of ambition, as they see it, and the ability of such a number to rely on the very services and infrastructure that will attract people to places and make them satisfying places to live, which you emphasised so strongly; it was so good to hear that right at the beginning of your remarks.
Can you say something about where the 10,000 came from? There does not seem to have been any justification—not that we have been able to find or hear anywhere. How do you expect that interplay between the relatively small number of 10,000 and the development of the infrastructure to look? Can you also say something about the way in which you hope the private sector will play a part in infrastructure, not just in housing? It seems to me that some criticism we have had bears on the fact that it is difficult to persuade the private sector to do things that provide social, as opposed to economic, infrastructure. That is a rather complicated set of questions. Can you start with where the target came from?
Matthew Pennycook: The target was determined by Ministers in the department on the basis of official advice and conversations with many external stakeholders. The threshold question is interesting. Let me give an example. For our new homes accelerator, which is accelerating large-scale housing sites across the country, the threshold that we normally use is 1,500 homes for a large site. Anyone would agree that 1,500-plus homes for a new town is not sufficient. We judged that 10,000 was the appropriate threshold as a minimum number of units for a new town to deliver, but our clear expectation—this is the sense I get from Sir Michael—is that, in many cases, we expect the sites proposed by the Taskforce to have projected housing numbers far in excess of 10,000. As you say, there will be opportunities to build out these large-scale new developments over their lifetime.
We expect the programme to deliver collectively perhaps hundreds of thousands of homes in the decades to come; that is the sustainable contribution that this will make to the housing supply in England over and above the targets we have set. That is the threshold. It is certainly not a maximum ceiling for the number of units; it is a minimum as a unifying principle in terms of what is coming forward. In some ways, it is quite a significant threshold for urban extension and regeneration sites to make up that number. Greenfield is a slightly different proposition.
On infrastructure and amenities, again, we will have to wait and see what the final report says. Let us run through in practical terms what, hypothetically, that might mean. I fully expect the Taskforce to say, “We identify site X as an appropriate location. We think the most appropriate delivery mechanism for that site is this. We advise you that the appropriate funding mechanism is this”. It is important for the committee to know that a range of delivery mechanisms could be used. It could be a fully-fledged, centrally led development corporation. There might be a phasing aspect to this, but it could be, in the first instance, a joint venture, which a development corporation picks up from in time. So there will be a range of delivery mechanisms.
As I said, the unifying principle—it runs through the placemaking principles in the interim report—is that it will deliver all the infrastructure amenities that are needed for thriving communities, and will be able to draw on government support for affordable housing, such as the £39-billion, 10-year programme that we secured at the spending review, and other forms of government support. In terms of, as Jo said, putting that evidence base together in the early stages, starting that master planning work and getting things off the ground. Hopefully, that answers your questions.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: In part, yes. Some comments have been linked to the fact that you are also looking at urban extensions, not just new towns, and the concepts that they are likely to lack a distinct identity and that quality development or infrastructure will not be added in a way that might be the case with a larger number, as in an extension of an existing urban area. That is where some concern has come from.
Matthew Pennycook: We asked the Taskforce to look at identity specifically; it is one of the lessons that it drew out from its review of the post-war programme and the consultation work that it has done with communities across the country. We were saying on the way over that places such as Warrington and Redditch rightly do not think of themselves as new towns any more, but they were originally. The Taskforce went out and said to residents in those places, “What is it about the programme that you value?” The response was, “The distinctive nature in which our community came forward”. Lessons have been learned from that.
Even when it comes to sites that the Taskforce might recommend, in terms of urban regen and extension projects, we have asked it to be clear as to whether a large-scale new community that augments an existing urban settlement will add to that place but also have its own appropriate individual identity as part of that. We have asked the Taskforce to consider this and fully expect to see it reflected in the final report.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: Can I move on to the point about the 40% affordable homes, which was the gold standard set by the Deputy Prime Minister when she announced the mix of tenures? A large number of our witnesses have expressed some scepticism on whether the 40% can be delivered and, indeed, whether that is an appropriate mix given the importance of having mixed-tenure developments in a community. Can you say something about that 40%? What is your likely approach to it? Has it been modified by the comments you have received? Has the Government’s view on the way in which it might be delivered changed at all?
Matthew Pennycook: The short answer to that is no. I take the point about mixed communities, but there is such a crying need for affordable housing—in particular, social rented housing—in the country that we think that this must be a factor in the tenures that we bring forward. We remain committed to that gold standard aim of 40% affordable housing, with an emphasis on social rented homes, as part of the renewed priority that this Government have accorded to that tenure generally.
I take you back to Lord Porter’s question and the question we had on land value capture and how these new settlements will be delivered. In recommending a particular site, the Taskforce may say to us, “We don’t think your gold standard can be reached in this particular location. We advise a particular mix”. I do not know what it will say—again, I have not seen its final report—but we asked it specifically whether we can hit those sorts of targets, given the nature of the delivery mechanisms and financing in terms of what we are talking about. These are not settlements that we have brought forward in the way others are under the current system. We think that these are appropriate targets.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: Several of our witnesses from the development part of the industry have suggested that 40% social or affordable homes would not make for a viable development. So there is obviously some scepticism, at least among developers. There is no history of them producing this level; it is difficult enough to get the current level of social homes built without much more substantial government support. Have developers expressed that concern to you? They have certainly expressed it to us. Have you had a chance to think about the way in which developers might, through the private sector, be able to do more to ensure that that target is delivered?
Matthew Pennycook: By the very nature of how these settlements will be delivered, they give us the chance to deliver much more public gain than standard housebuilding developments would. The very nature of being able to master plan, to draw a red line around a development and to use land value capture mechanisms will allow us do that.
To be clear, in the examples of development corporations—we can come on to them—it will be the development corporation that interacts with specific housebuilders, potentially on specific plots, rather than a single housebuilder making those decisions. Again, government control in bringing these sites forward will allow us to take those opportunities forward. The committee knows this, I know, but we have to think differently about land value capture and viability in these circumstances.
Joanna Key: Can I add one point to that? It is worth distinguishing between social and affordable homes that are delivered through a Section 106 agreement, as part of a private development, and those that are stand-alone, which will be funded through the affordable homes programme. We need to look at that in the round for the development as a whole.
It is interesting to look at the history of the new towns movement. As the Minister said, we are in a very different world than we were in the 1970s or whenever, when they were sometimes built at 80% affordable housing. I do not think that it is impossible, but sometimes you need to use a mix of incentives and subsidy to get there.
Lord Porter of Spalding: I am hugely impressed by your robust defence of that number because 40% is not unachievable. We have to disguise different types of tenure as being affordable. There is certainly plenty of patient capital out there that will step into a market that is way under normal private sector space. If you give them the confidence to get involved, they will definitely do so. A chunk must be at the social rent level—or else, what is the point—but they do not all have to be in that space to become affordable. Everybody’s life journey puts affordability in a different place. There is a mix of products out there that will deliver 40%. We have heard people say, “Well, they can’t do it. It’s not achievable”, but the fact that you are quite robust on this is for me very reassuring.
Matthew Pennycook: I come back to the nature of how these are delivered. You are absolutely right: we want to see a range of tenure and genuine mixed communities. We want that emphasis on social, but we have not said that the gold standard of 40% affordable needs to be all social. We are not talking about 40% in every instance. I come back to the point that the Government standing behind these interventions and providing that support will, by its very, nature de-risk the development to the extent that I think that it is completely achievable to hit those rates of affordable housing on these settlements.
Q144 Lord Cameron of Dillington: I will ask you about public engagement. Before I do that, just to counter and show that we are not all as one, some of us went over to Copenhagen last month to look at its new town schemes. It put in the figure of 25% affordable homes. I asked, “Why?” The response was, “If you put in more than 25%, you’ll find that the developer has to start cutting corners on the development’s quality because you don’t make any money on the affordable side of it”. Lack of quality in our housebuilding at the moment is a big feature that we want to try to avoid if we can.
Matthew Pennycook: I draw you back to my October Written Ministerial Statement. We very much want these to be exemplary developments in their design and quality. I do not agree that rates over 25% are unachievable. I reference Lord Porter’s remarks in the sense that we are going to look at a range of tenures here. Through our new social and affordable homes programme, we will fund tenures such as shared ownership alongside social rented homes. We want to have a blend of tenures in these new settlements, and we want them to be mixed communities. Again, we have not gone out with a hard, “You must deliver in every instance 40% social rented homes”, but we want that emphasis on social rented homes for an obvious reason: 1.3 million people are languishing on housing waiting lists. Fundamentally, those rates are achievable, but, again, let us see the Taskforce’s final report. It may say that different proportions and tenure mixes are more appropriate on some of the different sites that it recommends.
Lord Cameron of Dillington: Just to clarify, I completely share your positive outlook on the new town agenda in terms of both growth and quality of life. I also support fully your concept of mixed communities. However, we have heard about a degree of backlash where sites have been put forward by local authorities. I suspect that that backlash will grow in the cold light of day when sites are announced publicly: “You’re going to be building over our lovely green countryside. What do you mean by that?” What, if anything, do you feel you can do about that in terms of trying to get local people on your side with this positive agenda?
Matthew Pennycook: It is an appropriate question. I draw your attention to the fact—you all know this—that, post war, the three waves of new towns were not without controversy. It is reasonable to expect that there will be people who take issue with a proposed site, although I do not know to what extent in every instance. We have been clear on this point: fundamentally, for obvious reasons, we will take decisions about sites in the national interest. That is how we will take this forward. We went for the call for evidence and asked the Taskforce to engage in that exercise partly because we want local communities to see these as positive developments, to come forward and to be involved and local partners. There are other reasons, which Lise-Anne might come on to, why the Taskforce was keen to go out and engage communities across the country in events. It visited three new towns built in previous waves to understand what the public in those areas think the core components of new towns should be and to test further their design and place-making principles; that included open forums with residents in those new towns, as well as local businesses and local leaders. We absolutely want that buy-in.
I am straining the hypothetical but, if the Taskforce said to us, “We recommend this site. We think it’s appropriate. We think it will add significantly in a positive way to housing growth across the country and will unlock economic growth and opportunities. We advise you to take it forward”, the Government would not hesitate to do so against some opposition—I think that there will be opposition in these cases—if that is in the national interest. Ultimately, as a Government, we have made the decision to stand behind a new programme and a new wave of new towns because it is a fundamental means of meeting housing demand and need over the years and decades to come.
Lord Cameron of Dillington: Is it going to be written into the articles of association, or whatever the right terminology might be, of development corporations that they should consult with local people in a big way? One of the big problems is they will not be democratically responsible. There has been some opposition from local authorities in certain instances to the fact that these development corporations are not responsible to the local electorate. To what extent is it going to be written into their very being?
Matthew Pennycook: I will bring Lise-Anne in on this important point. I feel very strongly that there must be a role for local voice in whatever delivery mechanism comes forward. It is a reasonable expectation that development corporations will be the preferred delivery mechanism in most, if not all, cases. There are many forms of development corporation though, so—again, this is hypothetical—in a location proposed by the Taskforce that is an urban extension in an established mayoral strategic authority, it may well be that the mayor in question is best placed to set up a mayoral development corporation and take that forward. In some instances, that may be centrally led, but, as a guiding principle for any delivery mechanism, we want local voice and representation to be part of the mix to ensure that it delivers on choices made under the umbrella of the units and infrastructure amenities that you want to see being brought forward. Lise-Anne may add some more on that.
Lise-Anne Boissiere: The community engagement aspect is one of the place-making principles, precisely because it is one of the really important themes that was drawn out by the Taskforce in engaging with residents of new towns. The other thing is the hearts and minds aspect of this. People do not necessarily object to housing as long as you have the social infrastructure around it. Because these are being spatially planned, there is an opportunity to engage residents and ask, “What facilities will be required to make this an exciting and attractive proposition?”
Lord Cameron of Dillington: How are you going to set about doing that? Are you going to employ PR consultants to promote it? Being a fisherman, I wonder what flies you might want to cast over the public that you think will work best? Is it the transport links, the new schools, the new health centres or the green parks?
Matthew Pennycook: In many ways, it is impossible to answer that question without having received the final report. In setting the terms of reference, we made it clear that we expect a range of interventions. By the very nature of a stand-alone greenfield site, the Taskforce will have to advise that we take forward appropriate and significant infrastructure. Interventions in other locations may be very different. Alongside those recommended locations, we fully expect to have advice from the Taskforce as to those particular questions, together with the delivery mechanism and the financing. Then, in fairly short order, I hope, the Government can issue a response making it clear how we intend to proceed—or, in some cases, not proceed—to endorse the full package of sites and to take each of them forward.
The Chair: Minister, can I quickly push you on this? You used the phrase—or something similar—“If there’s some opposition, ultimately, it’s in the national interest”. I appreciate that we are also talking about hypotheticals, so you may not want to give a direct answer, but let us imagine that the locations are announced, that we are all sitting here saying, “It’s great”, and that we are all supportive of it. Part of the problem we have encountered in previous sessions is nimbys and yimbys—I hate those phrases—say, “Yes, this is great”, but, as you will know far better than me, the moment a location is announced, all of a sudden, the Vicky Pollard types say, “Yeah, but not here”. They will shift. When you say that it is always going to be in the national interest, to what extent will that always apply? Even your own party’s MPs—certainly local authorities and mayors—may say, “Hang on. Please, no, don’t do it”. If the backlash is too much, will the Government always say, “Look, this is in the national interest. We can appease to some extent, but we are going to crack on”?
Matthew Pennycook: Yes, plainly, because we have established a Taskforce with considerable expertise. Hopefully, in most cases, the Taskforce will say, “Local partners, businesses and the local authority are supportive of this intervention”, but if it comes to us and says, “We think that X site will add significantly to national economic growth and make a significant contribution to housing need over the coming years. We recommend you take it forward”, local opposition that says, “We don’t want it here”, cannot be the test. We have been very clear on the point that, ultimately, although we want as much local buy-in as possible, if appropriate sites meet those objectives, we will take them forward in the national interest.
Q145 Lord Faulkner of Worcester: Minister, you answered virtually all of my questions about development corporations in your earlier answers; I found them all very interesting. To be clear, are you not wedded to one particular model of the development corporation? It could be led by the local authority, by the mayor or by you, as the Minister. Is it right that any of those options are there?
Matthew Pennycook: Yes—that is right. As I said, we expect the Taskforce to opine on what is the most appropriate delivery mechanism in each instance. An important point that we have not covered yet is that, as an incoming Government, we have looked at the existing legislation and arrangements that are out there to ensure that we are prepared to support any type of intervention that is recommended. That is why, for example, there are provisions in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill designed to create a clearer, more flexible and more robust framework for the operation of development corporations, so that they can meet these modern delivery challenges and we are geared up both to respond to the recommendations of the Taskforce and to take things forward.
We recently introduced an amendment to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill that sets out the relationship between different types of development corporations, aligning their boundaries. We have thought through the various scenarios and what the Government would need to do to ensure that we are not constrained to relying on primary legislation coming forward in order to make a particular type of change.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: I suspect that I am a bit older than you, but I worked for a new town development corporation in the 1970s. A successful but controversial new town was created as a result of this. One of the main problems was the conflict between the development corporation, whose chair and members were appointed by the Government, and the local authority, which hated it all and would not even align its name with that of the new town. Will you be able to avoid that sort of conflict in future?
Matthew Pennycook: I do not think that I can sit here today and rule out conflict of that type arising. The Government’s position would be: let us have those local voices contributing to the delivery body, whether it is a development corporation or not, and have their voices involved in a positive, constructive way. Again, if the Taskforce hypothetically said, “We recommend you take forward X site”, and the local authority in question said, “We will have absolutely nothing to do with this initiative”, that would not be in the Government’s control, but, ultimately, if we determined that it was in the national interest to take that forward, we would.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: Do you see any possibility for a new towns commission being re-established at a later stage in the programme?
Matthew Pennycook: It is not something that we have given specific consideration to. Let me probe that—to do what?
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: To take over the assets of the corporations that are wound up then sell them in an orderly way, giving best value for money. It has been suggested, for example, by some people.
Matthew Pennycook: I understand the point; it is well made. As I referred to in a previous answer, we have asked the Taskforce to consider and give us its views on stewardship and how long-term arrangements can be put in place to avoid some challenges of the past.
Joanna Key: One criticism of the old new towns movement is that those assets were sold off prematurely and did not permit stewardship arrangements that would allow for them to be managed in the longer term. That is a lesson that we would definitely take to heart; it is something that the Taskforce has drawn to our attention.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: Bearing in mind that you have so much support for what the Taskforce is doing, you might find that it could become a new towns commission in due course. I shall leave that thought with you.
Matthew Pennycook: I will not speculate on what Sir Michael’s views about being asked to stay on would be. The Taskforce has worked very hard over the past year.
Q146 Viscount Younger of Leckie: We have touched on infrastructure, but I want to press you a bit more on that. We have heard from many witnesses who have said that they think it is absolutely critical—certainly very important—and highly desirable to have early investment in new towns in terms of transport links, hospitals, schools, parks, green spaces and all of that. You touched on that earlier, Minister. Lise-Anne, you said that the Taskforce was going to take account of place-making principles, engaging with residents and social infrastructure. You said all the right things. However, you had said that you were going to be guided by the Taskforce in this; that is fair enough, but I want to press you a bit more.
As a committee, we see this as incredibly important. I might press you to say that, coming from the department and from you, this is so important that it needs to be said up front. Bearing in mind the answers you gave to Lord Gascoigne on the national interest factor, surely this is important as well. In other words, if you were to invest in infrastructure first, the community would say, “I get it. I like it. We’re getting a new school. This is fine. I’m with it. It’s in the national interest, and it’s going to help us”.
Matthew Pennycook: There are two useful things I can there. Again, I draw your attention back to the place-making principles in the interim report and what we expect the Taskforce to recommend as ways to proceed in delivering these settlements to ensure that they have that infrastructure and amenity up front.
From our point of view—it relates back to the point I made about development corporations—the Government have taken a view that we need to be prepared to support any type of intervention that is recommended. When it comes to infrastructure, new towns will require resource and attention from most government departments and relevant arm’s-length bodies. We have been having those conversations. We need commitments from all of them to prioritise the programme in their budgets—that is why I say that this is a whole-of-government endeavour—and to resource and have strategies in place that deliver through the years of this Parliament and beyond.
The New Towns Taskforce has been considering those issues and potential barriers in the wider provision of infrastructure—again, we expect that to be part of its final report—but, from the Government’s point of view, I can assure you that we have had those conversations across departments, whether it is the DfT or Defra on water infrastructure, on what we need to be able to put in place across government to support these interventions.
Viscount Younger of Leckie: That is helpful. Am I right that you are saying that you already anticipate potential sites, or maybe not, but the point is that, if the Taskforce comes out with certain sites, you are already ahead of the game in anticipating new transport links and cross-government support? Is that what you are saying?
Matthew Pennycook: Yes. Through the Taskforce, we have the very long list of sites that were put into the call for evidence. The point I am making is that we have been anticipating recommendations in a variety of areas and what those might require to the extent of ensuring that, through the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, for example, development corporations can operate in the way they need to and other government departments are ready to stand in and prioritise particular interventions that come forward in terms of agreed sites with which we intend to proceed.
Viscount Younger of Leckie: My final question is to do with communities. We have talked a lot in this committee about forming communities. To what extent is that your thinking and, indeed, the Taskforce’s thinking? At the end of the day, you have to bring the community along with you, but, in building new towns, whether they are stand-alone or an extension of existing towns, forming community is incredibly important. To what extent do you agree with that?
Matthew Pennycook: I very much agree. These places must be not only exemplary in terms of their quality, design and sustainability but thriving communities. That is absolutely our intention. Whether they are extensions to existing urban settlements or stand-alone sites, that is very much part of our thinking.
On the Taskforce, certainly in my conversations with Sir Michael and the conversations that it has had with communities across the country, it has very much taken on board and given special thought to identity and what makes a place special, including people’s loyalty to and identification with places. On corresponding issues—I come back to economic growth—such as the economic purpose of a particular settlement that we are creating and what jobs will come from it, again, I draw your attention to other initiatives that the Government are taking forward and that the Taskforce has been engaged with, such as the industrial strategy. The Taskforce is factoring those sorts of government strategies across the piece into its thinking on the most appropriate sites to come forward; that is what we expect to see in the report.
The Chair: Minister, you mentioned earlier that you have tabled an amendment to the Infrastructure and Planning Bill. Do you think that, in addition to that, you have everything you need, or do you anticipate any further powers that may be required to deliver what is needed?
Matthew Pennycook: I cannot think of any, in terms of that Bill. As I said, we gave quite a lot of thought in the development of that legislation to adding to the fairly complex legislation that is out there. At some point, someone could do a piece of consolidation work on the development corporation legislation that is out there, because there is a lot. We looked and thought, “Where does the legislation need to be changed to ensure that we’re in a position not to have to look to another piece of legislation to put necessary arrangements in place for development corporations?” So we have made those changes and brought forward a recent amendment.
Baroness Taylor has just tabled another amendment to the Bill that would see centrally led development corporations ensure that, in a sense, they can be aligned with others. That is mainly about providing and ensuring that there is a clear governance framework for engagement between different tiers of development corporations, were they to emerge in any particular area. It is a tidying-up, rationalisation exercise in terms of bringing that forward. That is a recently tabled amendment, to which I know your Lordships will give due consideration and scrutiny.
The Chair: Baroness Andrews has a quick supplementary before we move on to the last question.
Q147 Baroness Andrews: I just want to tell the Minister about what we found in Denmark. Early on, you talked about connectivity and the importance of joining up. In Denmark, we found an example of infrastructure where a metro was driven into an empty wasteland as a means of generating new towns. Is there scope for you to think about connectivity in a slightly different way, given our spatial strategies, whereby you can in fact use transport infrastructure to drive new communities so that it becomes, as it were, the first decision in your thinking, rather than the last?
The other thing is the difference between extensions and greenfield or brownfield sites, as well as the importance of building in character and ensuring that people who either move into the settlements as new residents or move out of an existing settlement and into a new space understand that there is a history and a character to the place, with which they can identify. It is a very difficult thing to build in from scratch. It has to be part of the original narrative and the way you present the opportunity of that new place to people who want or may have to live there, because that will be the choice that they are offered.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: Can I make a quick comment relating to Copenhagen and its metro? The other thing we learned from our visit is that the whole of the metro there has been funded by the land value enhancement of the building of a new town north and south of the harbour—a model that you might possibly want to look at in the UK.
Matthew Pennycook: As a brief aside before I answer the full question, there are significant opportunities in terms of land value capture and what can be delivered on these settlements. In terms of the eventual programme that we take forward, each new large-scale settlement will have its own character, which will develop organically over the years. We are in a slightly different position from the initial post-war programme, which often involved the wholesale moving of communities out of slum areas. It is a very different world from that, but the intention and aim is absolutely to ensure that each new town has a distinct identity.
Personally, I would wait to see what the Taskforce says. I would like to see that identity reflected in the designs that are taken forward, reflecting the uniqueness of the place that is being created but also speaking to a particular place—even to the extent of the specific local materials that you might use, which should all have their own identity. Certainly, I would not expect each new town to be an identikit version in any way; they will be very different, which is why I said that, in some ways, it is hard to engage with what will be a series of place-specific recommendations, with the delivery mechanism and funding all tailored to those.
On transport generally—I will my bring officials in—Baroness Andrews made the point well that this goes beyond the new town programme. Transport interventions can supercharge housing opportunities; we know that. With all of the reforms that the Government are taking forward—and, indeed, some of the changes that we have already made—what we have done in terms of the revised National Planning Policy Framework is ensure that we have a different, generally more aligned approach to transport and housing. That is absolutely critical here.
One of the lessons of the post-war new towns wave was that, in some cases, they did not get the transport right—or, at least, it was for a different era. We are in much more car-dependent communities and we must look much more at sustainable modes of transport being hardwired into what comes forward. As the Minister, that would be my instinctive approach and response to the issue. Again, given the conversations I have had, I fully expect the Taskforce to have thought carefully about all these issues and factored them into its recommendations. Jo, you may want to add to that.
Joanna Key: I do not have anything to add. The transport stuff is incredibly important because it is often the most expensive part of the infrastructure provision for any new place. So I completely take the point about land value capture; we need to look at that extremely carefully.
Q148 Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: Good morning, Minister. You have touched on the fact that the new towns will be well designed and well connected. You were beginning to touch on the fact that they could be exemplars for their area. Given the fact that, in history, the most successful new towns anticipated how people would want to live, is there a chance that you can anticipate exemplars in these new towns for the second part of the 21st century—perhaps digitally smarter towns for older people or that sort of thing—so that you do not just replicate nice places that reflect history but reflect how we live now and how we will live in future?
Matthew Pennycook: That is an incredibly powerful point; it is something to which we have given consideration. It will certainly be part of the Government’s response. There are lots of opportunities here. There is a set of demographic and environmental changes that we know we have to respond to as a country. We have been very clear—again, this is in the place-making principles—that the Taskforce needs to consider how to make any large-scale new settlement that comes forward climate resilient, how to ensure that there is sufficient biodiversity and how it is ambitious in helping us meet our environmental targets.
On the tenures that come forward, we have to do better in these places to adapt to demographic change, but there are other, more exciting opportunities. What is a good example of that? It will vary place by place, but there is certainly an opportunity to think—as the Department of Health and Social Care has done and will continue to do—about how we can deliver primary care in a different, more effective way, certainly in any stand-alone greenfield new town that is brought forward. That will be part of the conversation in issuing the government response. We would look to ensure that these places are sustainable over the long term in all aspects.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: We have heard varying opinions from our witnesses as to whether the design guide should be mandatory. Do you have a view on that?
Matthew Pennycook: Lise-Anne can perhaps reflect some of the Taskforce’s thinking. This builds slightly on my previous answer, but we have made sure that place-making, in its fullest sense, and design and quality are very much on the Taskforce’s list of considerations, which we expect it to factor into its thinking. I expect every place it recommends to be unique in that respect in terms of what comes forward. Again, we would look for it to advise on the specific mechanisms, whether it is an area-wide design code or different parcels in a large-scale settlement having different design codes, and who delivers those. Again, it will be specific to the particular intervention.
As a basic floor, we have said that we want these to be exemplary communities that are brought forward in terms of sustainability, design and quality. That is the expectation we have set. Lise-Anne, you may want to comment on the Taskforce’s thinking.
Lise-Anne Boissiere: That is absolutely right. In anticipating future need, one of the key lessons learned from the previous waves of new towns was very much that you need to be able to adapt and to be flexible. Although we will be able to anticipate some things, this is a big generational shift and we will not see everything. The important thing is that we have flexibility in the plans, whatever is brought forward, so that we can adapt as we go and be responsive to events.
The Chair: That brings us to the end, you will be pleased to know. Building on what I said at the beginning, and echoing what Lord Porter said earlier, we all come from different parties and none. This has been a great journey, as part of our committee, in listening to different views; it is the start of our journey as we look into this issue. I hope that you have seen—I think that I can speak for everyone here—that this is something we increasingly care about and want to see succeed and get right. So I genuinely thank you, Minister, for your time today and for that of your team. I also thank—through you, Minister—your colleague in the department, Baroness Taylor, who has given us enormous time and support.
With that, the meeting is closed. I would personally like to say, hand on heart, power to your elbow with this mission.
Matthew Pennycook: Thank you very much. We very much look forward to your conclusions and responding to the considered thoughts that I know you will have about the whole programme.
The Chair: In the spirit of cross-partisanship, please use us as much or as little as you like. We genuinely want to support the Government in getting this mission done. That is what we are here for. This is not a political thing; we want to work with you as much as we can.
Matthew Pennycook: That is much appreciated. Thank you very much.
