London Assembly told six sites across the capital were considered for the government’s new towns programme but only two were chosen, reports Kumail Jaffer, Local Democracy Reporter

Deputy mayor of London Tom Copley (credit London Assembly)

Planned new towns in Enfield and Thamesmead could “show the way” for further major housing developments across the capital, the London Assembly has been told.

The proposed developments – which could yield up to 40,000 new homes in London once fully built – are waiting for ministerial sign off this spring, having been shortlisted by the government last year.

They are two of twelve sites being considered across the UK as the government looks to hit their target of building 1.5 million homes by the next election by replicating the success of previous new towns such as Milton Keynes.

It has now emerged that up to six sites in London were being considered by the government’s New Towns Taskforce but were rejected due to being too focused on “regeneration” as opposed to “urban extension”.

Sowmya Parthasarathy, director of consultancy Arup and a member of the advisory panel on new towns, told the London Assembly’s planning and regeneration committee last Wednesday (11th): “We developed criteria for those sites which came forward – these included having a good proportion of land ownership under single control, existing or potential transport links, value for money and some momentum for these sites to move into planning in this parliament.

“We also looked at whether these sites could provide 40% affordable housing. We received six applications from London out of 100 in total.

“The other unchosen sites were varied – some of them were much more regeneration focused, but we wanted to pick sites where housing could be developed in a new construct because then you can develop that new identity.”

She stressed, however, that the door was not closed on the rejected sites being developed in the same way in future.

“If Enfield and Thamesmead can show the way on how to build at pace with good identity and affordability, then those principles could be taken to those other sites,” Parthasarathy added.

“But of the candidates, these two could show the way much better than others.”

The London Assembly was told that while the planned developments on Thamesmead Waterfront and Crews Hill and ‘Chase Park’ aren’t brand new settlements, but instead extensions of already existing dwellings, the definition of a new town was relaxed in the latest wave of considerations.

Parthasarathy said: “We did start off with an expectation that we would be able to pick standalone new towns like Milton Keynes – but we had to expand the definition to include urban extensions. Many of the principles of how these New Towns will be delivered are aligned with the older ones.

“The current new towns contain a variety of typologies. Some of them are standalone, some of them are urban extensions, like Thamesmead. Some of them are identifiable places within cities, like Southbank in Leeds.

“We were asked to look at places which could deliver a minimum of 10,000 units. It’s a definition fit for today.

“The London ones are urban extensions or densifications.

Tom Copley, Sir Sadiq Khan’s deputy mayor for housing, claimed there was no reason why the current wave of new towns should be the “end of the story”, especially in London.

Noting the government’s demands for 88,000 homes a year to be built in the capital, he said further new towns could be one of the ways that City Hall can be “ambitious” in reaching the target.

Copley also said “there are probably a number of other sites that are of the scale and have the potential to be New Towns in future”, but refused to name them specifically.

“I see no reason why the twelve locations identified by the New Towns Taskforce should be the end of the story,” he added.

“Over the long term, twelve should not be the limit. But let’s get these two off the ground first.”

To read more coverage of the new town in Crews Hill and Chase Park:
Visit enfielddispatch.co.uk/tag/new-town

No news is bad news

Independent news outlets like ours – reporting for the community without rich backers – are under threat of closure, turning British towns into news deserts.

The audiences they serve know less, understand less, and can do less.

If our coverage has helped you understand our community a little bit better, please consider supporting us with a monthly, yearly or one-off donation.

Choose the news. Don’t lose the news.

Monthly direct debit

Annual direct debit

£5 per month supporters get a digital copy of each month’s paper before anyone else, £10 per month supporters get a digital copy of each month’s paper before anyone else and a print copy posted to them each month. £50 annual supporters get a digital copy of each month's paper before anyone else.