Brett Leahy and Niall Bolger.

Q65 The Chair: Good morning, everybody. Welcome to the Built Environment Committee. This is the sixth evidence session in our inquiry into creating communities in new towns. Today, we are looking at how the developers of these towns are engaged with the task of building up and engaging with those communities, and at their ambitions and expectations. We are ever so pleased to be able to welcome two people who are very much on the front line. The first is Brett Leahy, who is the executive director for environment and communities at Enfield Council. Crews Hill is your new extended town, correct?

Brett Leahy: That is correct.

The Chair: Our second witness is Niall Bolger, who is the non-executive director at Belport, which is in the frame in terms of Adlington. You both have very different challenges but you probably have a lot of shared experience as well, which I hope you can share with the committee. Obviously, you will receive a transcript of this meeting so that you can check it and make sure that we have gotten it right.

I am going to start off with a general question. The taskforce reported in September, the sites were identified and yours were two of the successful sites chosen. Can you briefly update us a bit on the sites—though not in detail, because we will have the opportunity for that in our questions? What has happened since September in terms of progress and the process that you are going through?

Brett Leahy: There are several strands to this. We have been progressing our local plan in Enfield; it is in its final stages. It had 12 weeks of hearings this year. We anticipate getting the inspector’s letter next month. There are two allocations in that plan: Crews Hill and Chase Park. The new town builds on those two allocations, which is helpful in terms of how advanced the proposal is for a new town in Crews Hill and Chase Park. We have been working on the local plan and the SPDs for Chase Park and Crews Hill, which will inform and shape the new town; that is work in progress.

In addition, we have been working with MHCLG, the GLA and TfL on evolving and responding to the six-month technical review. We have a governance structure in place with our government and mayoral partners. We have agreed a clear programme of work because the challenge is not necessarily a planning challenge; it is a programme delivery challenge, in terms of needing to move with momentum. We have an agreed programme for those six months and meet weekly. In addition, there are workshops in place covering the three strands of the technical review: economic, environmental and social. Currently, we are progressing and working on that programme, with the intention of achieving designation in May.

The Chair: Will your local plan be agreed ahead of that? Is everything being incorporated into the local plan?

Brett Leahy: Yes. The local plan has been in production for seven years. There is a conversation when it comes to local plan production, but we are in the final stage. We anticipate that the inspector will issue his letter in January or February. Every local plan that has been produced in this country since the inception of local plans has had main modifications, so there will be modifications. We do not anticipate those to be significant, but we will have to respond to them: “Okay, thank you, inspector. We will adapt our plan to those modifications”. We will then have to go out to consultation again before we come back and anticipate the adoption of the local plan. That timeframe is no later than November next year.

The Chair: Are those two processes in parallel and properly integrated?

Brett Leahy: The two processes are in parallel, are integrated and are informing each other. This means that the Crews Hill and Chase Park site, in terms of technical understanding, is fairly advanced; one could achieve a spade in the ground in this parliamentary term.

The Chair: That is very helpful. What about you, Niall? Are you envious that Brett has a local plan to work with?

Niall Bolger: Yes—I am a bit envious. Since the Secretary of State announced the inclusion of Adlington in the overall programme at the Labour Party conference in September, we have been able to engage more actively with other stakeholders, the local authority and other agencies. Prior to that point, we were subject to a non-disclosure agreement, as the committee will be aware, so, despite our desire to engage with those organisations and agencies, we simply could not do that. Since then, we have opened up that conversation with residents, the wider community and stakeholders, as well as the local authority, so that we can engage them in the production of a more detailed master plan.

The second point is that, as a private sector organisation, we own 82% of the land in the designated area for Adlington.

The Chair: Can you speak up a little, please?

Niall Bolger: Of course. As a private sector organisation with 82% of the land in Adlington in our ownership, we are now progressing in earnest with detailed master plans to bring forward that planning certainty for our proposals for a minimum of 15,000 dwellings in time. The master plan work has started and will be undertaken in plenty of time so that the Government can make those decisions on further regulatory issues, as Brett indicated, and answer some key questions from the strategic environmental assessment.

As with Enfield, we have been engaging with the Government—MHCLG and its officials—and other agencies, as well as local utilities and local partnerships in Cheshire, in Warrington and, beyond that, in Manchester. There is a lot of work that we need to do, not least in engaging with residents about the overall proposal for the master plan; I know that the committee will ask about that in due course. Now it is in the open, we have a great deal of work to do. There is a huge willingness to do it.

The Chair: Can I ask you one short question? When you have engaged with the Government, have you been taking the initiative or has MHCLG been ringing you up and asking, “How are you getting on, chaps?”

Niall Bolger: To be honest, I would say that it is a bit of both. In some ways, I imagine that the officials with 12 places to deal with will place their attention according to the requirements at any particular moment in time. We have had good engagement with MHCLG when requested; in particular, the deputy director visited Adlington two weeks ago. We are also actively engaged with Homes England so that we can align our objectives with the ambitions of the Government, in particular for affordable housing delivery.

The Chair: What about you, Brett?

Brett Leahy: We are not dissimilar. This is very much a partnership between the Government, the GLA and TfL; we very much see it in that way. We are having weekly meetings with our MHCLG, GLA and TfL colleagues, so this is a shared endeavour and challenge. A key point I want to share with the committee is that we all have our areas of strength and expertise, and we all add value in different ways; that is incredibly important. We are working closely with the Government and the GLA as we move forward to ensure that we get the best of us and the best outcomes for the new town. This is critical and needs to be maintained.

Q66 Viscount Hanworth: The architect’s drawing board has been replaced by a computer programme that renders his designs in 3D and makes them available for inspection by virtually anybody. Are you availing yourselves of such facilities in the process of public consultation? I might add that the technology extends far further: the entire project can be rendered in a so-called digital twin. Are you availing yourself of this? I have seen nothing on the website to suggest that potential new towns are availing themselves of such technology.

Brett Leahy: I have experience in this area; my previous authority was Redbridge. We had a partnership with UNICEF and used 3D modelling when it came to significant regen schemes to engage young people in co-designing buildings and spaces. It is an invaluable tool and opportunity when engaging residents to get them to shape what you are developing.

In the context of the new town, we are in conversation with the Government and the GLA on a consultation approach and strategy because, again, it is a shared, joint endeavour. Residents, communities and businesses—everyone—need to be engaged, and technology most certainly has its place. In the context of Enfield and the Crews Hill/Chase Park new town, we already have a model in place: a software model that assesses the topography and constraints of the area to identify what is developed and what is not. That can be built further and be used in engaging with residents. We are talking about meaningful engagement whereby everyone has a voice and a chance to shape this fantastic opportunity.

The Chair: We will have an opportunity a little later to go further into the nature of community engagement. Niall, could you give a brief response?

Niall Bolger: We are far earlier on in the process. As a private sector organisation, obviously, we want to work with the local authority to make sure that it is using up-to-date technology to illustrate the overall new town approach. As I mentioned earlier, we are commissioning our master planners at the moment. We will expect them to use appropriate technology, as well as the more traditional methods of community engagement and involvement, as we develop our overall approach.

Viscount Hanworth: I must briefly mention that the Minister in charge in the Lords declared that the use of a digital twin would only add cost and delay. I was horrified.

Q67 Lord Porter of Spalding: Brett, did you just say that your sites are allocated in the plan subject to the plan being approved?

Brett Leahy: Yes.

Lord Porter of Spalding: That must mean that they have counted towards your housing numbers. The Minister has been quite strong in saying that any numbers allocated through new towns do not count towards your housing allocation. Are your members content that, whatever number of houses you are putting in the new town, they will have to go back out and find elsewhere in the borough?

Brett Leahy: That is a good question. The position of Enfield and the administration is that the new town will count towards our numbers. Throughout the process in which we have been engaged for the new town—I appreciate the Minister’s position on this—in terms of Enfield and the GLA, our position is that we are pro-growth. We are seeking to address the key challenges for our communities, borough and city. The numbers should count towards our need. We have made that position clear to the Minister; we will continue to do so because that is an important and valid point.

The Chair: Can we move on to the official first question, as it were, which is about place and identity? Lord Cameron will kick things off.

Q68 Lord Cameron of Dillington: Although this is the first official question, such is the enthusiasm of this committee that you have already answered it a little; we are halfway there. Is there a vision for your sites? If the answer is yes, what processes do you put in place to arrive at that vision? Then—because we are presumably talking about a long-term vision—what processes will you put in place to ensure that the vision is delivered over the next two or three decades?

The Chair: Niall, since you are busy writing, you can go first.

Niall Bolger: Adlington is a greenfield site. As a consequence, it represents an opportunity as well as issues in relation to delivering an overall ambition and vision for the place. Our vision is to create a parkland new town where approximately 40% of the available land will be green and blue open space. Along with that, we own Adlington Hall, which is a grade 1 listed building with a grade 1 listed landscape with its own parkland supporting it; that will be publicly available for the first time in 700 years.

Culture, environment, biodiversity and carbon-positive development are part of our ambition for the new place, given the need for us to build sensitively and delicately within the landscape that we have. We are determined to have a place that is relevant to the vernacular of Cheshire and relevant for the future, using sustainable methods of construction and including infrastructure from the off.

One of the advantages of a greenfield site is that the viability assessment—as far as we are aware, at the moment—raises no existing infrastructure issues in terms of historic development. We are therefore able to deliver high levels of sustainability from the outset.

Lord Cameron of Dillington: What processes did you go through to arrive at that vision?

Niall Bolger: We used the usual methods and master planning techniques, using data and evidence to support our ambition in our draft strategic master plan.

Lord Cameron of Dillington: Who did you consult?

Niall Bolger: As I mentioned, we were unable to consult because we were subject to a non-disclosure agreement, but we used the best means possible as far as we were able, aligned to the existing policy frameworks that are relevant to that local authority and beyond. Now that we are able to do this more openly, our master planners will engage with local residents, stakeholders and businesses in the local area far more; we have been doing so in order that we can make this place as relevant and positive for the local community as we possibly can.

Lord Cameron of Dillington: What about the second half of my question, which was on long-term delivery? How will you see this vision through?

Niall Bolger: As I mentioned earlier, 82% of the new town land is owned by Belport Ltd. We are determined to be the long-term stewards for the land. We also wish to see an appropriate organisation—a development corporation, perhaps—that holds that vision and helps ensure that there is long-term delivery so that our vision and ambition are not diluted. We are extremely keen that local residents can see that mandate expressed and see that their interests are being held by an appropriately designed organisation with government sponsorship and support.

Brett Leahy: Our vision focuses on high-quality design, affordability—that is critical—and a compact, walkable, mixed-use neighbourhood, as well as strong nature recovery. We very much see stewardship as part of that vision, with the council remaining its custodian for the long term. This is in our borough; these are our residents and our communities. Therefore, the council is clear that it will be the long-term custodian of that vision.

Nature is the guiding framework for the Crews Hill/Chase Park new town. We are working in a green belt context. Yes, there is grey belt, but there is a golf course and low-grade agricultural land, too. We must demonstrate exceptional circumstances to avoid urban sprawl but ensure that the new town integrates with its landscape. Nature recovery and landscape-led place-making are at the heart of our vision and delivery strategy. Let me just hold up a document for you all: our nature restoration strategy.

The Chair: Can you leave that with us, Brett?

Brett Leahy: Yes. I have the privilege of having a head of rural transformation in my directorate—the only one in London. We have a rural transformational programme with Defra and the EA: 1,000 hectares of land are being restored with forestation, nature recovery, the enhancement of local ecology and the naturalisation of all our rivers. We are seeking to integrate that into this new town fully and dovetail it as a complementary element. Nature is critical for mental and physical health, but nature and nature-led placemaking are also critical in good place-making.

As I shared earlier, we are in a fortuitous place, in that we have an advanced local plan. That plan and the two allocations are built on that vision. We consulted at Reg 18 and did a pre-Reg 19 consultation, then we undertook a Reg 19 consultation that involved the entire borough. This vision and approach is fairly advanced, and the new town truly has an opportunity to capitalise on that. You have green and blue infrastructure at the heart of the vision and the new town, which is good for not just public health but climate resilience, in terms of the changing climate and ensuring that our communities and neighbourhoods live in a resilient environment for generations to come.

Lord Cameron of Dillington: That is all very aspirational, which may be good. I am glad that you started off by saying that you look to deliver high-quality design because, frankly, that is not what our housebuilders—in particular the large ones—have achieved in recent decades; it has been exactly the opposite. How are you going to ensure that you get this high-quality design? What processes are you going to put in place to make certain that we have decent houses and decent places?

Brett Leahy: There are several components; I appreciate that they may touch on other questions later in these proceedings. Vision is the starting point. You need shared understanding on the vision. If you do not have it, that 1% makes it very difficult to achieve the 99%, which is the quality piece you are talking about. That is the first point.

The second element is that, in Enfield, we have our own design review panel, which has already been fully immersed in the two allocations and the new town. I have my own architectural, urban design, landscape and conservation teams, so there is expertise and capacity; those are critical elements in this. It is about strong governance and clarity of roles but, in Enfield, we also see value and importance in having a development corporation; we have a view on what that development corporation needs to look like to achieve the quality.

When it comes to our architectural approach, there are three key components: the architecture, the built form and the spatial layout. Those components are absolutely critical in creating good-quality environments. Yes, we need good architecture, but we also need to get the right built form and the right spatial layout with the right street network. There are numerous layers to this, all of which require expertise. We have the expertise but you are absolutely right that the critical piece is pulling it together under that one vision.

Q69 Lord Bailey of Paddington: Good morning. Brett, I will start with you; in the interests of brevity, I am going to ask you a lot of things, which we can wade through quite quickly.

First, one of the criticisms in this whole piece is that the Government have not been able to articulate a vision for what they want to do, so it is interesting to hear how far along your vision you believe you are. Has them not articulating the vision been a problem for you, or not? That is the first thing. I make a point on that: you said that it will count towards your housing figures, but the Government have been definite that it will not.

Brett Leahy: No; I will come back to that point.

Lord Bailey of Paddington: You can see how that might be an issue.

Brett Leahy: Yes.

Lord Bailey of Paddington: Also, when and how are you going to start to communicate this vision? My esteemed peer next to me talked about you being aspirational, but I know Enfield: people do not care about all that green stuff; they want someone who can pay for it all. Is that at the top of your agenda? Enfield people say, “It’d be nice to have a park, but it’d be much better to have a bedroom for my kids”. Do you see what I mean? So, what is your hierarchy in this vision, in terms of the reality of delivering these things? Of course, things cost in different ways.

Lastly, how do you feel that the new town fits in with the footprint of London? You are potentially about to provide a large amount of housing and bring a lot of new people to Enfield. Are you looking forward to that? Is that part of your vision? How will you articulate that to your locals?

Brett Leahy: Thank you for all those questions; I am going to try to remember them.

Lord Bailey of Paddington: Do not worry—I will prompt you.

Brett Leahy: Thank you. Let me quickly go back to the local plan and briefly articulate that vision, in terms of engagement with the community. I suppose that having these things running in parallel is an advantageous place to be; they can be an “and”, not an “or”. It is useful to be in that space and advantageous that we have a strong, articulated vision that has engaged communities, residents and members from all backgrounds. Can you remind me of the first point?

Lord Bailey of Paddington: I am most interested in the affordability. What is your hierarchy of things to communicate and deliver?

Brett Leahy: The New Towns Taskforce has its objectives, which shape the vision. Again, we have been playing it back to MHCLG, the GLA and TfL: “This is in Enfield. This is a new town in our borough”. We are clear that we are the custodians of that vision and want to be the custodians of that vision thereafter; that is incredibly important in terms of bringing communities along with you.

Homes, especially affordable homes, are incredibly important—certainly in our more deprived areas. The deprivation stats for Enfield are not easy reading. Many residents are just working families who want a home. They want to be able to live in the borough they were born in, work in and have family in, but, due to availability, house prices and rental values in Enfield, they do not have that opportunity. Our deprivation is significant and compounded by two things: low wages; and very high rents and property values. Those are difficult, key drivers. We have been very clear to the Government, the GLA and TfL that this is about family homes—that is, affordable three to four-bedroom family homes for working families.

That plays into the conversations around density and getting the balance there right. We are an outer London borough in a rural setting and we want to be treated as such, so the design and feel of the new town needs to respond to that. We are having those conversations; it is partly an evolving piece, I suppose. I assure the committee that this is a legitimate programme of works—a significant rural transformation programme—that will be integrated into this new town. This is not being done internationally.

I go back to Ebenezer Howard; I am going back to my Cardiff University days of 25 years ago. This will be a true garden city. That is what residents want—access to the countryside and a green, pleasant environment—but they also want affordable homes where they can raise their families.

Lord Bailey of Paddington: I happen to agree; I may bother you outside of this meeting because there is a lot more I would like to push you on. Let me flip to Niall quickly. You made the point that yours is a green site. I do not know your corner of the country; like most Londoners, if it is beyond the M25, I do not know it. Who are you speaking to, if those people are not there? It sounds to me like you are talking about an entirely fresh site.

Niall Bolger: That is a really well made point. We have started a conversation with local residents and the local people who are, it would be fair to say, upset by our proposals; they did not understand that this proposal was coming forward because we were subject to a non-disclosure agreement, as I mentioned earlier.

As soon as we were able to do so, we talked to local people, heard their voices and understood their concerns. The vast majority of those concerns are legitimate and a common cause with us: what about schools? What about highways? What about transport? What about public service delivery in the area? All of those things are relevant to Belport and will be relevant to both the local authority and the emerging mayoral combined authority; our conversations with the Government are about those things. So we have started that discussion. We want to generate an opportunity for a more trusting conversation, even with those who oppose the new town, so that we can engage them and encourage them to look at the art of the possible as we go forward with our detailed master planning. Our undertaking is to do all of this in the open, going forward.

Your point about unheard voices—those in housing need—is a really relevant one. We are undertaking research into that. There is undoubtedly housing stress in Cheshire: it is the third-least affordable place in the north-west. Increasing housing delivery problems are the three local authorities in the new combined authority area, which have targets of approximately 58,000 new homes over the next 10 years. None of them are actually delivering against those targets at the moment; through the analysis that we have undertaken, we have identified that as a key limiter to economic growth in that region and sub-region.

Housing delivery, including affordable housing delivery, is just as important in that part of the country as it is in London. The nature of affordability is different; nevertheless, it has similar impacts and effects in terms of social, economic and environmental consequences for people, in particular family fracture. On affordability for young people, accessing employment opportunities in Cheshire, Warrington and beyond is limited by the availability of homes that they can afford to rent or buy. All of these things are necessary. We want to talk to those individuals who will be our future residents as well, in order to get a balanced view of what the new town needs to create in relation to meeting those needs in the longer term.

The Chair: We have another question on community engagement; I suggest that we dive into these matters then.

Lord Bailey of Paddington: I will stop there, but this whole tension is why I challenged our panellists on what they provide and at what level. We talk about social housing all the time, but there are people above that who have big housing need as well. How do we address that?

The Chair: We need to drive down more into the responses we have had. We have two quick questions from Lady Miller and Lord Faulkner.

Q70 Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: Which entity took out the NDA? It seems to me that there is nothing more likely to raise hostility in your local community. Are you aware of this being a common practice throughout the UK?

Niall Bolger: I understand the logic as explained by the Government, in terms of avoiding land speculation; that is important in the context of our current system for planning, development and regeneration. However, I agree with you that it is not helpful not to do things in the open. Rectifying that has been a key concern of Belport over the past few months, since we have been able to have conversations with the key organisations.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: Was it a government NDA?

Niall Bolger: Yes.

The Chair: Is it still in force?

Niall Bolger: No.

The Chair: When was it lifted?

Lord Porter of Spalding: They were all subject to that when they submitted; that was the Government’s policy.

The Chair: Okay. So it was universal and has been lifted—fine. That was just for my own clarification.

Niall Bolger: I believe that the Secretary of State’s public announcement at the Labour Party conference relieved us of the non-disclosure arrangements.

Q71 Lord Faulkner of Worcester: May I ask both of our witnesses the same question? In the cases of Adlington and Enfield, there appears to be substantial local political opposition to new town development. Enfield Conservatives are, I think, your main opposition against the proposal. There is a lack of enthusiasm on the part of almost everybody for Adlington, including Cheshire East and the new MP for Macclesfield. How important is the need to win over local politicians? What are you doing to secure that?

Niall Bolger: Cheshire East does not have a policy position on Adlington at the moment; we are attempting to engage with it as far as we can. There is a debate at its council meeting on 10 December, which may well realise a position on the local authority. Warrington Council supports the new town, as do Cheshire West and Chester. I would not suggest that it is a neutral stance in Cheshire East—it is not for me to account for the local authority’s policy position—but we want to work with local politicians as far as possible to ensure that what their ambitions look like is realised through the planning process. It would be foolish of us not to do that, so we have put a great deal of energy and effort into working—or attempting to work—with local political leaders, local authorities and parish councils. They have been engaged; it would be fair to say that, at the moment, they are universally opposed.

However, as I said earlier, some of the issues that they are raising at the moment are common cause issues: what about highways? What about transport? What about healthcare? What about education provision? Those are common things. Quite frankly, I do not blame them, because those things have historically come in after development rather than being contiguous with development. Although we are a private sector organisation, we are determined not to do that, but we want to work with local people and politicians who realise that, through the Government and their agencies, in order to make sure that does not happen this time around. That is the promise of the New Towns Taskforce.

The Chair: We need to move on but I have a quick question. You have both referred to development corporations. In your case, Brett, is that a local authority-led development corporation?

Brett Leahy: Not necessarily.

The Chair: Okay. What about in your case, Niall?

Niall Bolger: We are open to whatever mechanism or organisation can give policy and regulatory certainty.

The Chair: Is that still in the mix?

Niall Bolger: It could be a development corporation or it could be something else; we want to negotiate with the Government on that. The nature of the investment requires that, but the bulk of Adlington will be delivered by private sector investment.

The Chair: Are you also in the middle of local government reorganisation?

Niall Bolger: Not for the unitary authorities where the combined authority has already been established. The mayoral election is due in 2027. Its shadow board has been established and is chaired by Councillor Gittins from Cheshire West and Chester.

The Chair: There are a lot of moving parts.

Niall Bolger: Obviously, the mayor will have responsibility for, in particular, strategic economic development, spatial strategy and transport—all of which will be relevant to Adlington—in due course, but we cannot wait for that. We need to work on it.

Brett Leahy: We are in a not-dissimilar place in terms of being open about the nature, type and mechanics of the development corporation. We are clear that a development corporation is needed; I am happy to share later the rationale for our view that a development corporation is of value. As part of the programme, for the next six months, we are working with MHCLG and the GLA on the development corporation; there are different views, which we need to work out, because we add different value.

Going back to public engagement and the public helping to shape the new town, Enfield has most certainly articulated to the GLA and the mayor that our position is that the planning powers will sit with Enfield. We have the capacity and the expertise, and we add value, but these are all types of conversation that we are having at the moment with our partners, the Government and the mayor.

Q72 Viscount Younger of Leckie: I have a very short question on Belport; it may chip in to the next group of questions. Niall, what is Belport? How important is it, and to what extent, for the development of Adlington?

Niall Bolger: Belport Ltd is a private asset management company mainly in the rural development space. Our development partner is an equity platform called Revcap, which works with international funding and finance, including sovereign wealth, in terms of investments in infrastructure.

The Chair: Let us move on and start diving down, briefly, into social infrastructure. Lord Mawson will kick things off.

Q73 Lord Mawson: Niall, I have heard a bit from Lord Deben about your development; it sounds like a genuine new town, in the sense that it is all new and is not a bolt-on, which is interesting. I am interested in the delivery of key social and community infrastructure in the early development process of something like this. First, what are the practical challenges? Lots of theoreticians talk about this—very easily, in my experience—but they are often not cognisant of the real, practical challenges in what some of that actually means. What are your and Brett’s thoughts on all that?

Second, I listen to all this talk as a person who has been at the other end of the telescope for many years, trying to build stuff, with endless government processes. I know somewhat the limitations of a lot of that stuff, so it would be good to hear your reflections on the limitations of government and its processes in all this—particularly since, as we have heard, we are all going through devolution. There is a whole lot of restructuring going on while all of this is meant to be happening; goodness knows what that will mean in practice for officers, continuity and that stuff. It would be good to get your sense of that.

Also, what real thoughts have you had on development corporations? I sat on one for many years in the Olympic Park; I chaired the regeneration piece there. I know that, had we left it to the processes of a development corporation, what we built there, in terms of a mixed community and the detail of that, would not have happened. It required a clear local vision, real drive and attention to detail—all that stuff. Blindly following the London government processes would not have got us there, I am afraid, so I am interested in your reflections on that.

Thirdly, I turn to investment because neither of you has talked about money; having been involved in these big schemes, I know that they cost a lot of money.

Brett Leahy: They do.

Lord Mawson: They need to be really clear. We as a committee are not clear on what this Government are talking about in terms of their investment. Without it, there will be lots of fine words and fine reports, but, in the end, nothing will happen. It would be good to get your perspectives on the reality of those conversations around money and investment, including how real you feel that is. Niall, can you go first?

Niall Bolger: Those are excellent questions on the practical challenges around a new town—particularly in Adlington, as there are existing people living there. We need to be respectful of the fact that Adlington is a village; we need to ensure that the small settlements around it are actively seen to be a part of the future. However painstaking that might feel, we need to do, and will do, that; we want to do this in due course with the public authorities as well, in order to have proper conversations with residents.

There is often a lot of conversation about place-making, design quality, biodiversity, net gain, et cetera, but we also need to start thinking about building community. What does it take to make a good community? How do we get under the skin of things and understand what a future community may need, in a respectful way, so that we have open and honest conversations with future residents, as well as those who exist at the moment, about the things that are important to them? It goes beyond buildings and into a sense of place, identity and culture.

We are going to look at and examine, through our master planning process, essential community infrastructure, including the buildings; the opportunity for social integration; the creation of balanced places; and how to deliver housing in a balanced, equitable way so that we have mixed, balanced communities going forward. How will that phasing impact on funding and financing? What will it mean in terms of infrastructure? How will we generate and invest in resident and community developments from the outset?

There is some learning from what was undertaken in Milton Keynes when that was originally developed. We are determined to do that, but we will need to do it with civil society organisations and the local authority, as well as making sure that the Government pay attention. In the New Towns Taskforce’s report, there is a hint of it, although it does not say it explicitly. In my opinion, that community development and place-making is essential.

On the limitations of governance, with which we are all very familiar, I have just come out of a long career in local government to do with joining up bits of government with a local place. For the success of this programme, the Government are going to have to take a completely different approach to joining up. The agencies we have to deal with work on different timetables and programmes of activity, with different requirements in relation to planning, strategy, et cetera.

There is a challenge in that; I do not underestimate it, and I am not offering a criticism either. It needs effective co-ordination so that we have single conversations to maximise value for money in the investment that is required to make the new towns function and work. For example, we need to co-ordinate and harmonise the way in which the Education and Skills Funding Agency, Highways England, Network Rail and their successor bodies are planning for place. That will be a huge challenge, but it will be absolutely critical for the success of the new towns programme.

I turn to other things: our statutory requirements and the slowness there, if we are going to deliver at speed. Lord Mawson, you said that you could not shift the date of the Olympic Games because they needed to happen. Some innovation in legislation, looking at ways in which regulation could be much more adaptive to facilitate development, will be key. That is a job for the Government but also for the partnerships with the new towns in those places, as you rightly indicated.

In talking to the development corporation, we are open-minded about what needs to happen. I will talk about this in the context of the money as well, but one thing that we absolutely require is policy certainty for long-term investment. We cannot have flipping and flopping, short-termism or short-term planning; dare I say it, we cannot have unnecessary intervention and interference, arguably, from government agencies, given the nature of the resources that need to be deployed. There is no question in my mind that this needs to be a private-public partnership approach. As a nation, we do not have the money to afford to do all of this; therefore, creating policy certainty for the future delivery of new towns is crucial, not least because the cost will increase as more risk is applied to it.

On the funding and financing, as I have mentioned already, the investors in Adlington own the land and are willing to invest in the development of the new town in partnership with government. We wish to talk to government about the mechanisms through which we can collaborate on a fair share of risk and reward as part of that overall proposition. However, we also have to be mindful that the role of government is public delivery and public service, in essence, so a fair and equitable share of the costs of infrastructure will be needed and necessary.

Brett Leahy: I share the points made by Niall, so I will not seek to repeat those; they have been well articulated. There are just three additional points I would like to share, and then I will respond to the question directly. In terms of Government and that co-ordination piece, that is absolutely critical. We need one voice and one point of reference to navigate the complexities but, critically, to get and maintain momentum. We need to deliver, and we need to reflect on that. I shared earlier that I do not necessarily see this as a planning challenge; it is more of a programme delivery challenge. The governance and how we interact with each other is quite critical.

Very quickly, on funding, the new towns piece and part of the New Towns Taskforce position is absolutely that you have to have the scale to attract funding. The new town at Enfield will require government funding to realise the opportunity, maximise the opportunity and accelerate delivery, particularly around the infrastructure piece. That position is quite clear from Enfield’s perspective.

The other point I want to touch upon will again reference Milton Keynes, as I oversaw the current local plan there. Milton Keynes is the third fastest growing city in the UK and it has overdelivered its numbers. There are two particular reasons for that. Those are the same reasons we have applied to the current local plan that has emerged in Enfield, and the same principle is being applied to the new town. First, the foundational work is based on viability, deliverability, investability—that is critical—and the technical evidence that sits behind that. Secondly, infrastructure and community infrastructure needs to come first. That plays into the community piece and people seeing the value in growth, in enabling people to live where they work or where they were born. Infrastructure is absolutely critical to that. Milton Keynes is a very good example of quality of place. When I was the head of planning in my time at Milton Keynes for three years, I remember seeing many delegations from around the world wanting to learn how you do it, and Milton Keynes is a good example of that.

On the actual question, we see that the development corporation will provide the fundamental components for early delivery of key infrastructure. Enfield is the majority landowner for the Crews Hill and Chase Park new town. The council can provide long-term co-ordination stewardship through the development corporation—that is a critical part of the vision—and play a key role in delivering critical infrastructure that aligns with our values, our communities, our residents and our businesses. The opportunity of a development corporation brings the mechanisms to bring community and social infrastructure early on that the market-led models that you referenced do not do.

In the new town at Crews Hill there will be a new town centre that will provide key services for early phases, including shops, caffs, bars, restaurants and a school. It includes the upgrade of the train station from two to eight trains an hour, and other sustainable transport improvements. These are our fundamental principles but they need to be embedded early on, and the development corporation and government funding enable us to front-load that and embed those elements of that vision early on. That is the value.

The other key element that we have developed—again, this comes from my Milton Keynes days—is the equalisation framework. We have many developers and many landowners. The Crews Hill allocation itself has 80-odd landowners. Thankfully, 90% to 95% are supportive of the allocation of the new town, but we have developed an equalisation framework that touches on to some of those viability, durability and investability considerations. This is a Milton Keynes tool, and what you do is make sure that infrastructure costs and land contributions are shared equally and fairly with landowners and developers, so that everyone feels they are contributing their fair share and they are doing it equitably. Critically, yes, we anticipate and expect government funding for key pieces of infrastructure.

Lord Mawson: But you have no numbers yet.

Brett Leahy: We are in discussion on numbers. We are seeking, for example, the metroisation of the rail route to Crews Hill and beyond, potentially to Hertfordshire. There are conversations around that. We have clarity on what infrastructure we need. Again, I go back to the local plan providing good foundational work—millions of pounds worth of technical studies—and the new town builds on that. We are having those conversations and we have a rough figure, which we have shared with our government colleagues, of what we think needs to be put forward initially to truly optimise and get the best out of this particular opportunity.

Lord Porter of Spalding: I am not picking on you, Brett, but you keep saying things that make my ears a little itchy.

On the basis that your project requires me to have a piece of land that would be allocated in your local plan anyway, where I can rape and pillage all its value just by sticking up blocks of flats, you are saying, “Don’t worry, Gary; you’ve got to share some of that value with the guy who’s got the lake two miles away because it will make your development better”. It will not. If my land is already allocated in your local plan, I take all the value, thank you—I am not sharing it. How do you bridge that conversation with your 80%-odd landowners?

Niall is all right—he has 82% in his in control. He can just have a word with his directors and say, “Come on, guys, we’ve got to divvy it up”. You will have to talk to a load of random people who have no skin in the game with each other.

Brett Leahy: To provide clarity, for the new town proposal the majority landowner is the council. I apologise if I was not clear on that.

There are three elements to the Crews Hill and Chase Park new town. If I concentrate on Crews Hill, it is mainly grey belt and, as is the nature of this type of land, it has roughly 80 landowners. Chase Park, which is more traditional green belt, has four landowners—and they want to build tomorrow. On the 80 landowners, you are absolutely right. This is a key challenge for any strategic allocation around the country.

I go back to my Milton Keynes days. There were similar situations, and the equalisation framework deals with that exact challenge. You are absolutely right. You will have a strategic layout, where one bit is residential and one is open space. The value is in the residential and not in the open space, but the residential bit needs the open space. So you create an equalisation framework because they need each other and they both then benefit in uplift and value.

Lord Porter of Spalding: On unallocated land, yes, but you just said you are putting yours into your local plan. It is allocated. At the point it becomes allocated land, it is my value, not yours to share out.

Brett Leahy: The equalisation is part of that particular framework and allocation. It is part of the framework that the allocation is based on, which is not dissimilar to how Milton Keynes operated.

The Chair: We should probably draw a line at this point.

Brett Leahy: Sorry for the itch.

Lord Porter of Spalding: I can see the risks writ large in there.

The Chair: It is Lord Porter’s task on this committee to point out the risks. We welcome that very much.

Brett Leahy: Can I make another point to possibly help with the reasoning? In Crews Hill, a developers forum has been taking place for probably two years now. Landowners are starting to amalgamate. So you have a particular landowner or developer that has acquired substantial parts of the land, and other developers are acquiring land. That is happening as we progress. I say there are 80 landowners, but we have been on a journey, as you would normally find. But I recognise the risks. I do not say there are no risks; there is risk in all that we do, and we need to be mindful of them so we can manage and mitigate them. I am live to it, and I get pushback.

The Chair: Our final question, which I hope we will get to before 12.30 pm, will be on the obstacles, so we can come back and push on that some more.

I move on to Viscount Hanworth and the questions on exemplary place-making. You have already raised exemplary place-making and digital twinning. Viscount Hanworth, do you want to pursue those questions?

Q74 Viscount Hanworth: My designation concerns place-making—namely, what can the Government do to ensure that good place-making is the norm?

Perhaps I can offer my own commentary at the outset. I understand that the design standards affecting residential building are now advisory rather than mandatory, meaning that they are unenforceable. I recall the Parker Morris standards that regulated such matters as floor space, lighting and the provision of electric sockets, which prevailed from 1961 to 1980, when they were abolished by the Local Government, Planning and Land Act. The effect of that abolition was evident in the housing that was built to accommodate the development of Canary Wharf. The rooms were so small that two people would find it intolerable to occupy them unless they were in a tight huddle. Even in that case, I doubt they would have lasted together for more than a weekend. What can be done to ensure that such standards are not disregarded in the building of new towns? More generally, there is the question of place-making, which I find somewhat indefinable. Can you be more specific about what that actually means?

Brett Leahy: It goes back to vision and a shared understanding around what the vision is. That is always the starting point in achieving that quality piece; everyone is absolutely crystal clear about the direction of travel they are taking when we go through this process. Obviously, the process is not just for next year; it will be a 15 to 20-year development cycle, so the quality piece is ongoing and evolving. I am sure that, in five or 10 years’ time, expectations we have now will vary. Having a vision enables you to capture the quality aspect.

I appreciate I am not being as tangible as you might like me to be, and I will cover it in a bit more detail, but good growth and development need flexibility. You cannot fix everything down to the ground. You need that flex, particularly when you have a development cycle of 15 to 20 years. Ultimately, you want to enable good-quality delivery.

On the place-making ideal for Enfield and Chase Park, we are in a rural edge setting. Our new town needs to be clear and compact, with walkable neighbourhoods. We see nature recovery as the critical element in landscape-led place-making, truly integrating green and blue infrastructure. So we use landscape, topography, our numerous watercourses and local ecology as our primary structuring principles when we consider design.

There are other elements to that. We look at international standards. We are unique, because we are fully integrating this rural transformational programme; that is a unique USP for Crews Hill and Chase Park. The plan is well-founded. I share this from an urban design background, as I have qualifications in that area. It goes back to basic urban design principles of walkable blocks, strong street networks, rail-anchored centres and, in our case, landscape-first neighbourhoods. That will achieve quality.

In Enfield, we have our own design review panel. To achieve quality, it is important to have clear policy frameworks, such as site allocations, character studies and strategic master plans that set clear expectations around character, landscape and movement. But the design governance that interprets plans and makes them happen is critical. We expect our well-placed design review panel to be continually engaged as we move forward with the new town.

Viscount Hanworth: So you have your own design panel. But when large construction companies are given a design-and-build remit, how can basic standards be enforced, let alone the nostrums of good place-making? Perhaps Niall can respond to that.

Niall Bolger: I could not agree more with Brett. In Adlington, a similar approach will be taken through our overall master plan. In the absence of any regulatory context at the moment with the local authority—I do not aim to talk on its behalf—I expect a robust design code to be adopted for the entire master plan. That then becomes material in the determination of a planning application, whether that be a development corporation or any other entity, and that is held in the public interest. That is the necessary part of this. The public interest needs to be expressed through that regulatory and policy context, which also gives certainty to investors. In Adlington, we intend to build significant numbers of private homes for rent. Therefore, holding that asset and designing at a very high-quality threshold will be essential, because we need to rent homes and people to want to live there. From the outset, we want to see high-quality design that is very environmentally sustainable too.

In relation to some of the well made comments from Brett—I will not repeat them—it is about how the intergenerational holding of that regulatory context happens. These places will take 15 or 20 years to be delivered. Over a generation, tastes change, policy shifts, and threats and opportunities happen. We need flexibility, but we also need a strong sense of public ownership and stewardship for places—which I advocate for as a private sector investor—in order to give certainty to the investors that we work with and in the context of the people who will live in these places in the longer term. The first phase needs to be as durable as the final one. We need to think about it in those terms for the long term.

Viscount Hanworth: We are clear about the aspirations, but how can a good design code be enforced? In particular, do you look for the Government to produce more levers and instruments to enable enforcement?

Niall Bolger: There are ample levers and instruments for us to use in the existing town and country planning code for the enforcement of policy; the issue is how they are used. It needs to be done in a very straightforward and transparent manner, so that they are designed for the long term. We do not have to invent new legislation for this.

Viscount Hanworth: I gave you a leading example of how all those codes were evaded, namely Canary Wharf. What do we have now that they did not have, and what enforcement would we—

Niall Bolger: Interestingly, that was done by a development corporation. The role of government in holding that public interest needs to be expressed appropriately and properly through any instrument or organisation that gets highest responsible delivery. That is what Enfield says as well.

Brett Leahy: The make-up of the development corporation will be critical. In Enfield’s case, we want to be the custodian of the vision throughout the process, primarily to ensure that we achieve quality and maximise the opportunity for our residents and businesses. We need to work with the private sector; it is a shared endeavour. There are shared opportunities, and we need each other. Certainly, in the engagement we have had through the allocation forums, developers are very much on board with the aspirations around design quality.

It is really important to have founding principles in mind at the outset: viability, investability and deliverability are the three core components that are really important to have at the outset, when you evolve and shape that design.

The Chair: We will move on to community engagement. You are in very different situations. How do you visualise the community that you are now dealing with in having to create a sense of confidence and an appetite for moving into what, at the moment, looks like a rather precious green space, which they value for other reasons? Brett used a wonderful phrase, “The value in growth”. How do you begin to demonstrate through how you engage that there is a value in growth that they will share?

You also talked about vernacular architecture, which again is very important if you are to get people to identify with a place that they cannot visualise entirely themselves and that some may well see as a threat.

Q75 Viscount Younger of Leckie: To add to what you said, Sir Michael Lyons highlighted in his task force report the importance of community engagement. It is going too far to say that the Government played it down in their response, but they did not emphasise it among other things quite so much.

We have heard quite a lot already about community engagement. You both spoke very eloquently about your different areas. It is fascinating that there are two contrasting types of new town here. You have Crews Hill and Chase Park being brought together as an existing and expanding community. Then you have the brand new green field Adlington new town. Both are fascinating.

My questions focus on community engagement. Particularly thinking about you, Brett, and the Milton Keynes experience, how should one engage with the community? What are the success factors for making it work? How do you handle the disruption factors? I happen to live quite near HS2, which has been extremely disruptive. If we look to build new towns, we are talking about 10 years of disruption with lorries, earth and everything that comes with it. Is there a panacea or a silver bullet in how you bring the community along? Finally, is there a pattern of those who are against? Do they form a particular type of group, so that you can say, “Yeah, it’s them again”? How do you handle that?

Brett Leahy: First, engagement will be critical. We have been very clear with our GLA and MHCLG partners that there will need to be open and continuous engagement. That is incredibly important. It is not a one-moment opportunity and that is it; it needs to be a continuous piece throughout the life cycle of the new town.

Critically, it has to be meaningful engagement; mere letter notifications to properties are not sufficient. We need to ensure that engagement is done in such a manner that you reach all groups, all communities and all those who reside in and have a stake in the borough. At the same time, we need to recognise that sometimes groups are underrepresented when it comes to planning; we need meaningful engagement that captures their views.

I always take great heart in the work I did with UNICEF at Redbridge, where we had children and young people, women and girls co-designing their environment so that they can feel safe in their neighbourhood, their manor and their streets. Targeted, meaningful engagement is important. Different new towns will have different components of what that looks like and how one needs to approach that. But certainly, it needs to be ongoing and continuous.

In Enfield, there has been much engagement on the local plan and the two allocations that will, I hope, be supported by the inspector in January and February. The new town work has been led by the administration—by locally elected members who represent their communities and constituencies. So there is already a local democratic voice, in the sense that the administration has listened to its residents and put forward this particular proposal.

In the context of Enfield, it is about affordable homes. Let me give you a sense of the pressures that communities experience. My leader, Ergin Erbil, is a young man. When he started out as a councillor, 500 residents in Enfield were seeking accommodation a year; it is now 500 a month. That situation is not contained and will deteriorate further because of the challenges around availability and affordability. We need to understand that.

We need to capture the benefits. We talked about infrastructure; that is critical and needs to be up front. Those who generally object to development—it is universal—tend to cite that infrastructure has not come with growth. A key component for the new town programme is ensuring that we understand what infrastructure is needed and we deliver early on so that existing communities, not just the new ones, benefit from growth. In Enfield, with the rural transformational work, it is about climate resilience and mitigating flooding, for not just new but existing residents. I hope that clarifies matters.

Viscount Younger of Leckie: It does. I have an extra question which goes back to those who are against new towns. Can you give us an idea as to how many there are, percentagewise and how you handle that group, before we move on to Niall?

Brett Leahy: There are communities and residents that are against the new town. These are the same groups, communities and residents that did not support the local plan and the two allocations.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: What sort of people are they?

Brett Leahy: They tend to come from several resident groups, primarily in the west of the borough, which is probably more affluent compared to the east. The east of the borough is where we have significant deprivation challenges. It is also residents who live within and near the two allocations and the new town.

Their concerns tend to be around the green-belt loss, but they also articulate that one can achieve more through maximising brownfield. They mention social infrastructure as it currently stands, particularly health facilities and libraries, and those vital buildings that people value and that create community, that are not delivered up front.

I am generalising. There are many more reasons that were played out through the 12 weeks of hearings this year. Those groups attended and raised their concerns through that process.

Viscount Hanworth: Is there a danger you could be stymied by a judicial review raised by one of these groups?

Brett Leahy: There is always that danger. That is why, with the local plan, the inspector has been incredibly forensic, to avoid or minimise and mitigate the possibility of a JR and then a successful JR.

If the new town is designated, one hopes that there would be a development corporation to come up with a local plan and a mini plan that residents can engage in. There needs to be meaningful engagement.

You are quite right that there is always a risk of JR, and that that could be successful. That is why we have to be very clear in doing things procedurally to help mitigate and avoid that JR. That is a risk, absolutely.

Viscount Hanworth: Success usually consists of delay.

Brett Leahy: Absolutely.

Q76 Viscount Younger of Leckie: I want to pass on to Niall. I am jumping guns by assuming that there might be slightly less of a public backlash because you are a greenfield site, bearing in mind the backlash against the NDA. You did not use that word, but it did not go down quite so well.

Niall Bolger: It would be fair to say that most residents are very upset about the proposals and the process to date, in that we were not able to be as open and transparent as we wanted to be. That has not assisted with that.

Part of our task is to now work with the public authorities to rectify that situation and give information to residents. I would not denigrate residents. The situation is upsetting and it was a surprise to a lot of them. We have to work with those residents to explain and account for what our ambition is.

As I mentioned earlier to the committee, a lot of concerns are common cause issues with us. We want to see properly designed, sustainable neighbourhoods which have access to public services. It is essential that that happened for this to represent a good investment. Working with public agencies and authorities to make sure that happens, in the open and with resident involvement and engagement, is critical.

Unlike Enfield, we have not had a plan-led process. The local authority in Cheshire East is revising its plan. It has no policy framework for this and no mechanism therefore to mediate and mitigate against the activity. So we have to create a new space for that in policy terms, as well as everything else.

Communities are negative, but I would not necessarily characterise that as unusual, because it is a surprise. We have to be respectful of that and of what people say, and do our level best, as a private company, to engage and involve them as best we can. We need to work with the local authority to mediate and mitigate through democratic mandates. We are determined to do that in due course.

As for the mechanism and means of doing this, as soon as we were able we organised an engagement event at Adlington Hall. We deliberately invited the very local community, because it is the residents of Adlington who will be most impacted. Representatives of the local councils, including parish councillors, attended, along with representatives from Cheshire East Council. We will continue to do this and effectively communicate things as they arise, not least when the master planners are appointed in due course in January, so that we can engage and involve people at the very outset in the ambition for Adlington as a new town.

We use mechanisms such as being very transparent and rapidly communicating to people, having an accessible website, answering queries and questions, and, importantly, myth-busting. I do not mean to be derogatory, but sometimes people generate their own truths in the absence of anything else—we are all familiar with that—so we need to say what is accurate.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: They generate their own truths.

Niall Bolger: Indeed.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: Do you mean that they are making everything up?

Niall Bolger: I will give you an example. People say that we are going to build a rapid transit system down the Middlewich Way, a much-loved and protected cycle route. We are not. People generate their own truth, which generates its own tendency to be supported by others, particularly with online and social media impacts.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: You have had a lot of experience with this in the past.

Niall Bolger: I have.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: How do you judge the climate today against how it was 10 or 15 years ago?

Niall Bolger: Or even longer before.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: Or even longer before, all right.

Niall Bolger: Hence my memory of the London Docklands Development Corporation. It has changed massively.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: Is it more hostile?

Niall Bolger: It is much more hostile and much more anti-development. My own reflections are that part of the problem is in the planning system, with infrastructure not being delivered simultaneously with development. We have hoisted ourselves by our own petard on this. It is the fault of the system and the regulatory context, rather than that of the people who are opposed, in my opinion.

The experience of residents is that things do not get delivered when they are promised. We have to stop that, because it is unfair, unjust and inappropriate. That is me speaking from my own perspective of creating sustainable places as a private sector developer and landowner. The system needs to change to accommodate them, because it has corroded trust.

The Chair: That is very helpful. I want to go back to Lord Younger. Lord Faulkner, have you asked your questions?

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: I am fine. That was a very interesting answer.

Q77 Viscount Younger of Leckie: Is there a danger that you are overpromising with the locals? At the very beginning, you said that, after the NDAs were lifted, you started the conversation with the locals, covering transport, schools, hospitals and affordable housing. I absolutely buy into your vision and your use of the word, “parkland”, but is there not a danger that you are overpromising and are going to shoot yourselves in the foot in what you are able to deliver?

Niall Bolger: There is a danger of that, as with anything, for the reasons I have just described. But we are determined to maximise infrastructure simultaneously with the delivery of housing and other commercial space, so that these places can be exemplars as identified in the New Towns Taskforce recommendations to the Government.

If I am frank, we would not pursue it unless we wanted to do that, because we are a part of the new towns programme, which comes with obligations. Nevertheless, we need to work in partnership and collaboration with the Government and their agencies to realise that ambition.

It is not exclusively a private sector obligation and responsibility; there is an obligation on the Government and their agencies to deliver too. But if we are to follow the principles of the New Towns Taskforce, the promises we make to residents need to be embedded more broadly across the system. Over time—it will take time—that will regenerate trust and confidence in the regulatory context we work within.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Lord Mawson, you have a very short question. I want to get on to the last one.

Q78 Lord Mawson: I definitely understand the point about inventing your own truth; I have come across that quite a number of times. Facts matter.

I want to push you both further about how much you have thought about engaging communities. A lot of processes of the state ask people what they want as though they know what they want and what the issues are. In my experience, it is far more complicated than that. How much work have you done in drilling into individuals around you in those communities? In my experience, it is all about individuals; it is not about some silly processes that do not get you very far.

Brett Leahy: We are still working through that process. It is a good question and an important one, and it goes back to the core point about having meaningful engagement—sitting down and truly understanding the manner in which you engage and what you are trying to achieve. In this programme, we are quite clear that there needs to be engagement. We are working with MHCLG and the GLA on when that will take place. We need to properly assess and understand what that looks like, so I do not have the answer.

Lord Mawson: Do you think those organisations know?

Brett Leahy: Every new town is different. That is probably not a bad thing, because we need to deliver on the different components.

I spoke about Enfield being the custodian. We represent our borough, residents, businesses and communities. We have the agency and duty to ensure that those representations, views and engagement are meaningful and heard. But you are absolutely right: it requires having a shared understanding from the Government and the GLA. So we are working with them to develop an engagement piece. We are very much of the view that Enfield is leading that conversation. That is where we add value; we have a direct link to the communities.

Chair, as we advance, I can share further details so that members of the committee can understand what that looks like and give a view as we develop it. There is learning not only for Enfield and Chase Park but for all new towns. We know it does not stop here; there will be further new towns, I am sure, and further strategic allocations. There might be good learning and life lessons through this. Getting that engagement piece right is so critical.

The Chair: It would be a dreadful missed opportunity if you did not learn from each other and help us to learn as we go along.

Niall Bolger: This is it—you learn best from your mistakes.

The Chair: Niall, would you mind making your answer quite short?

Niall Bolger: We are very early in this process. I tend to agree that there needs to be a much more co-produced approach to information and facts. A shared agenda about what is truth and what is not needs to be a part of what we do next. That is our undertaking. We are very keen to do this jointly with the local authorities, even though they may not want to; we need that democratic mandate to be exercised.

The Chair: The final question—we have touched on this briefly—is about the challenges you face that might frustrate all this. Lady Miller will kick off and then Lady Warwick, who has been very patient.

Q79 Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: You have touched on quite a lot of the challenges and barriers this morning during our discussions. I have a fundamental question: do you think designation as a new town has created more barriers and challenges than if it was an urban extension?

Niall Bolger: Out of the 12, there are three that are truly new settlements rather than urban development or extensions. Arguably, it is a chicken and egg conversation. Would we have brought forward this level of development unless the new town policy was in place? I do not think so. But without question the opportunity and need exist for growth and economic development, as well as for housing delivery in this part of the country.

One hopes that being designated as a new town should give some policy heft and oversight, and a role for government in making sure that we meet the overall national mission of growth and renewal, which is where this should be located. This is just as much about economic growth as housing needs. The designation is important in that context.

Brett Leahy: I agree with that. The badge of the new town, and the status that brings in convening power with the GLA, TfL and government, are important, as are the funding opportunities.

We talked about government and the various departments, services and agencies. There is a clear programme, strategy and direction for delivering growth in homes and economic growth. New towns have the scale to deliver meaningful infrastructure, but also to attract national and international investments. It is unique, and that badge is incredibly important.

The new towns provide the framework for a development corporation. There are various models for each new town, but, where you have fragmented land ownership and have to co-ordinate stakeholders in that vision—not just government and the GLA and TfL but developers, landowners and all the other parties you need to engage—the new town development corporation enables you to co-ordinate and maintain the direction of travel.

Capacity is a key challenge for development and planning more widely. That is not unique to local government; it is true for regional and central government. In Enfield, we are in an advantageous place where we do not necessarily have that capacity challenge at the moment. That is not to say that having a new town will not create its own issues. A development corporation enables areas that have challenges around capacity to pool expertise in design, environment, movements, economics, viability and deliverability. Being on the front face, one is certainly aware of the growing capacity challenge in the built environment. That is a difficult challenge that designating new towns could help address in some part. I appreciate fully that new town development corporations also sometimes bring challenges.

The Chair: Can I pursue the notion of capacity? Presumably by capacity you mean the resources that are available in planning departments, skills shortages, failure to think in the long term, multiple land ownership, and maybe even a bit of opposition, say, in Enfield from the GLA to using the green belt. Capacity runs through the system, does it not?

Niall Bolger: Yes.

The Chair: You cannot always keep on compensating by drawing on the private sector, which is still stuck with skill shortages and too-near-time horizons and things like that.

Q80 Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: This has been absolutely fascinating. So many challenges have been articulated by you both. Have you a thought on the key challenge? I was struck by what Niall said about the fact that none of the local authorities in your area are delivering to their target of homes at the moment. When asked about the Government’s position on whether housing in new towns will be part and parcel of the original target, Brett said he assumed that it would not be an additional target that you were expected to meet. I was struck by your point about the demand for 500 homes per month rather than per year in a relatively short space of time for your young leader. Could you focus on that? We have talked about capacity, but what has happened here that enables you to believe that you could make a huge difference to one of the Government’s targets, economic growth, and to increasing the amount of affordable housing available?

Niall Bolger: I will speak from the perspective of a private organisation rather than the public authority. There are many complex reasons why we are where we are, and those have been debated and discussed for many years. It is critically important that the incentives for local authorities needs are correct so that growth can be acceptable. Often, there is a misalignment in the way that this is expressed through government. I would argue that one such misalignment is the failure to include new towns within the objectively assessed housing needs targets, as Lord Porter said earlier. That seems irrational to me, particularly if you are looking at a 20-year horizon. The targets are not over a 20-year horizon.

The acceptability of development in communities, as we have been debating today, is often about fairness in the allocation of the pressure of development. That comes through in public conversations and debates. If we cannot express that fairness effectively through robust and mature conversation with local residents about the need that is apparent in their place, we cannot then expect them to welcome development, no matter how much it is needed or contributes to local growth.

There needs to be a rebalancing to mobilise private capital to meet those housing targets, with more mature and open discussion around the dilemmas associated with it. When we talk to residents, undoubtedly they are concerned about their sons, daughters and grandchildren and where they are going to live. The solution has to be more homes, but that is not where the debate rationally ends up. It is important to hold that circle—hold the ring, if you will—in government to explain why development and investment is required. But it needs to be done fairly, equitably and objectively, based on solid evidence.

Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: Could I pursue that in relation to the particular circumstances you have described, where there is already resistance to the plans? It has always seemed to me that there needs to be a coherent story behind any such development and that those already living in the area need to understand much better the advantages for them; that is what they will judge this by, rather than somebody else’s advantage. Can you say something about whether there is sufficient optimism that that will happen in relation to the new towns? Is there a constructive story to tell that will win people over?

Niall Bolger: That is a brilliant question. It is early days, but our objective is to do that. We are placing the new town in Adlington in the context of many years of deterioration in public services. It is legitimate for residents to be deeply concerned about availability of healthcare, public transport and other public services. They are concerned about waiting lists in Stepping Hill and Macclesfield hospitals. That will not be corrected by us, but it needs correcting for this new town to be a success because it will require those public services to be delivered. I hope this will give greater confidence that we are on the side of advocacy for those things to happen and for a successful place to be delivered. It is a broader public policy conversation about how to recover public services, which is beyond our gift and remit, but it is one we can amplify on behalf of local residents.

Q81 Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: Thank you very much; that is very helpful. Brett, can I direct the same line of questioning to you?

Brett Leahy: My thoughts are not dissimilar from Niall’s from a private sector perspective, which is not unhelpful in representing a local planning authority.

I appreciate that I have been relatively repetitive on this, but on the risks, the biggest challenge I foresee is lack of clarity around the vision and the programme for achieving delivery. In my career, I have done four local plans and various urban extensions. In my view, it does not come down to planning for a particular challenge; it is about programme delivery and having everyone aligned. We need momentum. That is critical. If you do not have momentum, things get lost. There have been many previous announcements over many decades for various garden towns and new towns, but if you do not maintain momentum, you can quickly lose it. You see that with local plan productions. They lose that momentum. It is about making sure that we streamline, adopt and do processes in an efficient way.

We could do a development corporation in six months; we do not necessarily need 18 months to two years. But that comes down to everyone being aligned to the vision and having a clear programme that we all work to maintain that momentum.

Quickly, another key challenge is the Government talking with one voice. To go back to the infrastructure piece, this is so critical. It is a key reason why residents are generally unhappy or not supportive of growth. The Government can be consistent and sing with one voice about the value and importance of infrastructure, but that is not always the case. That is not to be critical of the Government, because they are trying to manage many things.

But look at, for example, the current reforms being considered, where we look to reduce SILs—strategic industrial locations—to fund infrastructure. There are planning permissions for developments that have done their consultation and have their captured infrastructure, and we are looking to introduce proposals to remove the possibility of that infrastructure being delivered. I appreciate that the Government are navigating many things, but it highlights the challenge in not having one voice and adopting actions to deal with those challenges.

One recognises the deliverability challenge, particularly in London—it is dire. We need to reform and simplify the planning system to respond to that. But when it comes to infrastructure, that is quite a critical and key point.

Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: Are there recommendations that we as a committee could put forward that would help to meet or overcome some of these barriers?

Niall Bolger: One recommendation that I hope members of the committee will consider is the need for a single point of co-ordination in government to give clarity and certainty about the levers to be pulled to bring in the many agencies that need to be involved in this. There are many across government that will need to be engaged in this process. We need a single point of reference where the process is co-ordinated and harmonised, because there are competing issues within existing agencies which mitigate this.

For example, in transport infrastructure, both places require improvement. We need to speed up the decision-making processes in relation to transport and rail in particular. It is not acceptable to wait, as I recently did, nine years for a decision in relation to heavy rail infrastructure improvement. That cannot happen if we wish to see the delivery of these new towns. That needs firm handling and prioritisation by ministerial direction, I would argue, in order that the new town programme and those selected to move forward are given due attention in planning.

The Chair: Thank you very much; that is very clear.

Brett Leahy: In addition to Niall’s recommendations, we need clarity and guidance on funding from the Government fairly early on. This would be incredibly helpful as we develop the infrastructure and ask for clarity and guidance on the funding streams to be utilised.

The other aspect—I speak primarily from an Enfield perspective—is around Enfield being a custodian. That is incredibly important. Going back to new towns, we should look to streamline where possible and practical. In our context, we have developers that want to build tomorrow; let us move to enable them to do that.

Lastly, the New Towns Taskforce references development corporations. I appreciate that there are various models that will need to be tailored for individual circumstances. The Government’s position is not necessarily that it will be a development corporation if you have a new town. For the reasons that both Niall and I have shared today, we consider that a development corporation is absolutely critical to the opportunities and success of the new town.

The Chair: That was a very important question—thank you, Lady Warwick—and very full answers.

Q82 Viscount Younger of Leckie: Something that has not been mentioned at all today is work. In 30 seconds, how important are opportunities for work, when you are trying to bring people in to develop new towns in each of your areas?

Niall Bolger: They are crucial. Our economic analysis in relation to Adlington is that housing delivery and capacity is a real brake on economic performance and delivery for Cheshire and Warrington, and beyond into Greater Manchester, both having buoyant industries that require skilled people.

Brett Leahy: The economic piece is a critical element of the new town. On jobs and work, in Enfield we have the lowest wage levels, so there is a piece around attracting investment and job growth that can raise wages.

We also have Meridian Water in Enfield, which is one of the largest regen sites in London. In partnership with developers, the council created an academy for construction, because we have shortages not just in planning but in construction. Two weeks ago, I did a visit for Local London with the leader, showing where apprentices will be trained up to support the construction of Meridian Water. We would adopt the same principles but at a much larger scale for the new town.

In addition, I have the employment and skills service within my directorate, where we support people into work. I am part of an Enfield charity that supports young people from disadvantaged backgrounds into work. We very much embed that in the expectations of the development corporation to ensure we look to maximise all opportunities. That is incredibly important.

The Chair: That is a good note on which to end, not least because, throughout the whole session, we have picked up on the common issues, risks and challenges you face and the enormous differences between you. It has been incredibly helpful. You have a knowledge-rich economy in Cheshire, and in Enfield there is the need to raise basic skills for well-paid, skilled jobs. Throughout the session, the committee and I have begun to understand the immediate and long-term challenges that these two models of the future offer. It has been very helpful.

You have been very patient and given us fundamental and rich answers that we will find very useful. If there is anything else that you think we should know, please keep in touch and give us the written stuff as well. Thank you again for your time and expertise. We wish you luck in making all this happen to the very best of the opportunities. With that, we can close the session.