Reinvestment needs of the New
Towns
5. The starting-point for our predecessors' recommendation
was the current state of the New Towns. They found that
[…] the New Towns are no longer new. They now
require huge new investment and redevelopment. Much of the development
was carried out within a 30 year period and is now suffering from
uniform deterioration. The construction materials for the housing
were experimental, non-standard and often poor quality, and in
some areas now require wholesale replacement. Additionally, the
infrastructure, the roads and sewers are now in need of substantial
upgrading.[6]
6. The Committee identified three particular
infrastructure problems facing the New Towns:
- Transport infrastructure:
"Many of the submissions
to the committee pointed to the dispersed nature and low density
of development in all the New Towns and the segregation of uses.
As a result the residents need to travel further than in many
traditional towns and cities. Whilst local services have been
provided within walking distance in neighbourhoods, access to
the town centres relies heavily on car use. Although some of the
Development Corporations included public transport provision within
their masterplans, the bus services are inadequate in many towns."[7]
- Town centres: "At
the centre of all the New Towns, a shopping centre has been developed
to meet the needs of the surrounding populations. Many have suffered
from poor design and layout. Most are now out-of-date and as a
result, residents are choosing to shop in other locations."[8]
- Housing design and public space: "Much
of the housing was put up quickly using 'innovative' designs which
have not stood the test of time. It now requires demolition or
at least major refurbishment. […] English Partnerships acknowledged
that the provision of community facilities such as playgrounds
and community centres in many New Towns was not adequate and that
some open spaces were not very well planned. It accepted that
it was now having to address 'some of the poorer work that was
done 20 or 30 years ago.'"[9]
7. The Committee found that local authorities'
attempts to address the reinvestment needs of their towns were
hampered both by the inadequacy of standard revenue funding and
by the decreasing usefulness of the 'balancing' packages intended
to cover the costs of maintaining public facilities which were
put in place at the time of the wind-up of the New Town Development
Corporations, which had previously been responsible for the maintenance
of the new towns:
The inadequacy of the funding arrangements was mentioned
by many of the submissions by the local authorities. Telford &
Wrekin council argued that the towns were built on the basis of
continuing massive capital and revenue support. "The successors
to the cash rich Development Corporations are cash-strapped local
authorities." The submissions from the local authorities
suggested that the Standard Spending Assessment (SSA) used to
calculate the Rates Support Grant to local authorities did not
cover the expensive 'non-standard' public facilities which the
Development Corporations built […] When the housing was transferred
to the local authority, no provision was made to improve and renew
it except through the rental income and standard housing funding
sources. The submissions by the local authorities pointed out
that the scale of renewal needed, especially taking into account
the problem of innovative design, was more than could be funded
through standard funding regimes.
[…] The 'balancing packages' were based in many
cases on an over optimistic assumption about the durability of
'assets' such as district and estate-based shopping centres. The
income-generating assets have all too often become liabilities;
and many even need demolition or clearance. […] The increase
in the value from the sale of [other] liabilities for commercial
purposes was clawed back by EP. Development sites went to the
Commission for New Towns, which was merged in 1999 with English
Partnerships. Their main aim seemed to be to dispose of the outstanding
sites rather than continue the work of the New Town Development
Corporations. The income from land sales went to the Treasury,
rather than being reinvested in the New Towns.[10]
8. The Committee concluded:
The local authorities now running the New Towns are
facing a major task with many areas requiring extensive renewal
which they may not have the capacity to tackle […] The
funds provided for the management and maintenance of the new towns
are inadequate, bearing in mind the non-traditional housing design
and infrastructure and the extensive landscaping built by the
Development Corporations, which is more expensive to maintain
and much [of which] now requires wholesale renewal.[11]
It continued:
A comprehensive audit of the liabilities inherited
by the local authorities from the Development Corporations is
required so that adequate funds can be allocated for the maintenance
of the towns. This audit should look at the social, economic and
environmental impact, urban management impact and long term reinvestment
needs of the New Towns.[12]
Lessons for current policy
9. As Professor Lock noted in his letter to our
Chair, one of our predecessors' key recommendations related to
the lack of research into the experience of the New Towns programme.
This is what they found:
The Committee was astonished to receive evidence
from both the DTLR and EP that the New Towns 'experiment' has
never been evaluated and the reinvestment needs reviewed, despite
the investment of £4.75bn in them. Given the evidence from
our inquiry, it would be wrong at this stage to develop new generations
of new towns, particularly before the experience of the existing
22 towns is evaluated.
It is very surprising that the New Towns 'experiment'
has never been evaluated. This evaluation should include more
detailed reinvestment needs of the New Towns. An evaluation is
urgently required which identifies both good practice and mistakes
before any new major new settlements are considered.[13]
6 HC (2001-02) 603, para 13. Back
7
ibid, para 17. Back
8
ibid, para 18. Back
9
ibid, paras 22, 28. Back
10
HC (2001-02) 603, paras 47, 49, 51, 45. Back
11
ibid, paras 73, 74. Back
12
ibid, para 78. Back
13
HC (2001-02) 603, paras 84, 85. Back
