Future of New towns

The Future Potential of and for a New Town in North West Europe

By John Walker (formerly CEO of the Commission for New Towns)

Four key questions

• Are New Towns planning instruments for the future?
• Can New Towns be planning solutions for future EU spatial policies?
• How regretful is it that New Towns are not mentioned in the recently approved ESDP document?
• Can New Towns perform "higher functions" in the West European region and if so, which ones?

Some key distinctions

• We must include, but distinguish between what new towns want from governments and what governments can gain from new towns.
• The New Towns have many common features, but also major differences.
• One difference is the extent to which further growth is likely or desired.
• Some New Towns are now relatively mature, low growth areas. Their potential contribution to wider regional objectives will be very distinct from that which can be made by those still under or seeking rapid development.
• Most New Towns were developed under special legislative and administrative arrangements, with unusual powers and access to funds. This is certainly true of the UK where Development Corporations were created to secure the creation of the New Towns.

Key lessons from the New Towns

The New Towns of the post second world war era represent the largest and longest running set of urban policy initiatives in the UK and probably in North West Europe. For this reason alone they merit careful evaluation by the EU:

• to identify and make use of examples of good practice;
• to understand the causes of their weaknesses and avoid repetition;
• to ensure that the enormous investment made in them over 50 years is not undermined by neglect for the next 50 years, but is built on to support their regional contribution.

The New Towns and their administrative arrangements included many of the concepts currently held in high regard by national and EU administrations. They took a long-term holistic approach to the planning, development and management of their areas.Their development was driven by locally based, but relatively independent, single-minded agencies.They were engines of real economic growth. The "single door" capability of the Development Corporations was immensely attractive to investors of all kinds. They collectively learnt from their own mistakes, and in later phases took an approach to development which recognised many key ingredients of "sustainability" before that term was in general use. These include:

• local access to facilities,
• cycleway networks,
• mixed tenure housing, at a fine grain.
• low energy buildings,
• facilitation of community development and voluntary sector activity.(Milton Keynes is an excellent example)
• balance between jobs and economically active population, which is such an obvious contribution to sustainability, yet so rarely articulated elsewhere.

- dealt with, and provided valuable examples of success in both new development and re-development, on both "green field" and "brown land". This is a particular issue in the UK, where "brown land" is the focus of policy and the experience in new towns such as Corby, Washington, Warrington and Telford is often overlooked.

- found that the stimulus of large scale, rapid development gave rise to an enterprise culture, a willingness to experiment and challenge old thinking,

combined with the opportunity to put new ideas into practice. Examples include: the early promotion of information technology in the early 1980s;

- were financially successful for Governments as well as for private investors. In the UK, all expenditure by Development Corporations was financed by loans from the Exchequer. By 1998 the final outstanding loans had been repaid, with interest, some 40 years before they were due.

Weaknesses

• Their holistic approach relied on imperfectly engineered partnerships with other public authorities, whose co-operation was variable. Co-operation was often frustrated by conflicting financial systems, which made the provision of a key facility a major burden. For example the provision of a hospital might be essential for the new town. However the health authority with wider geographic boundaries, had little incentive to fight for the necessary funds.
• There was little connection between the growth of new towns and the income available to local authorities which took responsibility for the on-going running costs, and the initial capital cost of some facilities and services.
• The third weakness in the UK was a sudden "turning off the tap" by central government. This was not so much the restriction of capital funding, which could have been expected as the towns became better able to attract private investors. It was a 180 degree change of attitude, from that of Government as promoter and guardian of the long-term welfare of the town, to rapacious landlord and asset stripper.
• The Development Corporations had great autonomy, within an overall plan and policy determined by government. They were relatively free from day to day local politics. This contributed to their success by allowing them to focus on their core task. However, lack of local political control and accountability became their primary weakness, in that the communities they were responsible for creating demanded, understandably, more say in their activities.

Maintaining value in New Towns

My third reason why the EU should pay more attention to the existing new towns is that I believe there is a real danger that 50 years of investment; financial, social, physical and economic; by public and private sector could be undermined by wilful neglect. The existing new towns ought to be used as a firm basis for continuing progress in urban development, but will fail do this if their vitality is undermined. In this respect governments should:

• Recognise the unique nature of new town infrastructure, which though relatively new, will all reach the point at which major re-investment is needed within a short period.
• Re-examine the relationship between growth and income to local public authorities. In the UK at least, growth can be a significant burden.
• Once more regard new towns as the product of their own policies and investments, which need to be nurtured if they are to continue producing useful benefits within the towns and their regions.

Future potential

New Towns contain valuable lessons which are highly relevant to the future and can assist with solutions to EU spatial policies. But New Towns would not be repeated using exactly the same approach as 30-50 years ago They offer lessons in what to avoid, and raise issues which would be solved differently in today's political and social climate.

The foremost issue is whether to and how to make long-term plans and long-term commitments. Governments find both of these increasingly difficult. The question is not so much can new towns experience be used, but whether governments are able and willing to articulate and tackle long-term development objectives. Unless they do we will have to make do with short-term intervention to modify or channel market forces. This may be deemed sufficient. It is certainly far less politically dangerous. In that case, much of what the new towns have achieved and can still offer will be of little value; until that is, the great pendulum of fashion swings fully back and someone re-invents the idea all over again with a different label!

(December 1999)