Consultation on the draft New Towns programme - L&Q response

May 2026

Executive Summary

L&Q welcomes the government’s proposal to establish a New Towns programme. New towns can play a key, long-term role in addressing the housing crisis and can help to raise the economic profile of an area through new employment opportunities and transport infrastructure. 

However, as the proposed planning policy is currently drafted, we are unclear on what the planning expectations would be. We are concerned that too much ambiguity within the policy could lead to missed opportunities to optimise housing delivery and support local housing need. This is of particular importance when discussing densities, which we believe should be maximised to support ambitious housebuilding targets. We would, therefore, recommend that the planning policy is supplemented with additional guidance and clear priorities to give developers and Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) further clarity on what is expected from new towns.

We recommend that flexibility in requirements is built into the development plans prepared by LPAs for new town proposals. Developers are facing increasing viability challenges when building homes, as construction costs continue to outpace sales values (1). Research by the Housing Forum has found that building costs are higher than house prices in one in five areas (2). To ensure the programme objective of deliverability can be met, development plans should be adaptable and accommodate for design challenges which may constrain viability, such as overheating and daylight requirements. Furthermore, whilst we support the inclusion of sustainability requirements through the SEA, L&Q’s priority is building homes - flexibility on these requirements may be required to improve design cost efficiency or sales values.

We understand that LPAs are also facing financial challenges and that the creation of development plans could take up significant resource. We are concerned that this could cause delays in the publication of development plans and lead to planning applications being submitted prior to the establishment of complete policies. This would be an inappropriate use of the already stretched resources held by housing providers and LPAs. Therefore, we support the government offer of funding to help develop town-wide masterplans and design codes and would emphasise that this may need to be regularly reviewed to keep up with demand.

Introduction

Question 1: Which of the following best describes how you are responding to this consultation?

On behalf of an organisation

Question 2: Which area are you responding about?

I'm not responding about a specific location/region, though L&Q has a particular interest in the North West and London.

Question 3: What is your connection the proposed location/region?

Developer

Question 4: If you are responding on behalf of an organisation, please select the type of organisation you are responding from below:

Housing association/registered provider

Question 5: Please provide name of organisation

L&Q

Question 6: What size is your organisation?

Large (250+)

Section 3.1 - Assessment of locations

Question 7: Thinking about the 13 locations listed, which locations do you believe have positive features that could help achieve the objectives of the New Towns Programme? What do you believe are the positive features of the location(s) you have selected?

We support new town development in Thamesmead, Greenwich. This is a large area in the outskirts of London, with the potential to become an attractive place to live and work. The area currently benefits from local transport and rail links, and is earmarked for a DLR extension connecting to the north of the River Thames. The DLR extension is of critical importance to the success of any new town development in Thamesmead. This would improve access to employment opportunities, education and health services, as well as retail hubs. We advocate for any new town in this area to also expand upon these services to ensure there is adequate socio-economic infrastructure for new and existing residents, a key element of the placemaking objective. A wave of regeneration has already instigated some investment, meeting the economic growth programme objective. Thamesmead also offers the potential for development at scale which could further boost the local economy.

South Barking could contribute positively to the New Towns Programme. L&Q is one of the long-term custodians of Barking Riverside, a development that includes two primary schools, two SEN schools, and one secondary school; two community hubs; a new London Overground station; an Uber Boat by Thames Clipper Jetty; and other local amenities, including shops, play parks and bike lanes. The Barking Riverside new town has enabled land remediation, transport improvements and the densification of the masterplan in the area. South Barking could benefit from  using this development as a model to achieve the deliverability and placemaking programme objectives. The location also has the potential to attract further investment and talent, building on the success of the Barking Riverside development.

L&Q is also a stakeholder in Chase Park, Enfield, managing over 3,000 homes in the local area. We would encourage the government to consider the possibility of regeneration in this area to support comprehensive master planning in any new town development. When delivered well, regeneration incorporates good placemaking principles, including environmental sustainability and community engagement. We would be keen to collaborate with the government and other local stakeholders on any planned development in Crew Hill and Chase Park.

Question 8: Do you think any of the 13 locations listed face barriers which could hold back delivery of the New Towns Programme objectives?

Market values in Thamesmead, Greenwich are likely to be lower than the London average. Data from the property data platform Hometrack shows the median sales price for a property in London was £515,000 in April 2026, compared to around £358,000 in Thamesmead. Whilst we expect this to be an attractive location for residents to settle, these lower values could make development viability challenging, particularly as costs are increasing quicker than sales values. This could have negative implications for meeting the deliverability objective, where robust funding provision over many years is required. We would advocate for incentives, such as Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) relief and funding for infrastructure, including that to address flood risk, which could help to bring forward development. We would also stress that the DLR extension would help to mitigate against these issues by providing investment opportunities and expanding access to employment, education and retail services.

Question 9: Do you think the SEA report has identified the main environmental issues relevant to the 13 locations?

Yes. We support the inclusion of sustainability requirements in the 11 SEA objectives, including biodiversity, flora and fauna, flood risk and climate change, alongside materials and waste and water resources.

Question 10: Is there any additional environmental information about these locations that the SEA should take into account?

N/A

Question 11: Do you have any suggestions for practical mitigation measures to address effects identified in the SEA report?

N/A

Question 12: Do you have any other feedback on the SEA report, including the issues and effects identified therein?

N/A

Section 3.3 - Proposed New Town locations

Question 13: Do you think the 7 locations proposed for the new towns programme are the ones most likely to meet the programme's objectives?

N/A

Section 4.1 - Government offer  

Question 14: Do you agree with the overall government offer for proposed new town locations?

N/A

Question 15: Do you think there are any additional interventions that government should consider to ensure design and placemaking quality in new towns?

N/A

Section 4.2 - New Towns planning policy

Question 16: How clear do you find the proposed planning policy?

We are uncertain on the proposed planning policy which we believe lacks clear, detailed guidance. The policy is based around headline statements on key policy areas, including plan-making and decision making, local housing need, land value, placemaking, and environmental impacts. We would encourage further information to be published to ensure the planning policy is implemented consistently across new towns and so developers have clarity on what is expected when submitting planning proposals.

It is understood that LPAs would be required to produce development plans to support the delivery of new towns, with the planning policy and Appendix A setting out a framework to help LPA’s prepare these. We understand that these should include information on the site boundaries, required infrastructure, and associated Design Codes. We advocate for the timely provision of sufficient resources to LPAs, to support the efficient preparation of these policies. We are concerned that, if the process for creating planning policy is prolonged, planning applications could be submitted for development before New Towns policy is adopted. This would be an inappropriate use of the already stretched resources held by housing providers and LPAs.

The proposed planning policy should build in flexibility to enable development to come forward in light of increasing viability challenges. Sales values are not keeping pace with rising construction costs, constraining the financial viability of new developments. This challenge is pronounced in some of the proposed new towns locations, such as Thamesmead, where sales values are below the London average. We advocate for Councils to build flexibility into their development plans and request that policies are not fixed or rigid – particularly in cases where applicants can show that such flexibility is required to improve design cost efficiency or sales values. For example, LPAs may adapt unit mix requirements or look to accommodate design challenges around overheating or sunlight requirements to ensure developments remain financially viable.

Question 17: Do you think establishing the placemaking principles in the proposed planning policy is an effective way to implement the placemaking ambition of the programme?

Yes. In principle, we support the New Town Placemaking Principles and appreciate that challenging issues, such as climate change mitigation and biodiversity enhancement, are included in the programme. However, we would stress that the principles are very high level at this stage and further detail is required to ensure the placemaking ambition of the programme can be effectively implemented.

Question 18: Do you think the proposed planning policy provides sufficient flexibility to new town locations to meet the placemaking principles?

As noted in our response to question 16, the proposed planning policy provides a conceptual overview, rather than detailed planning guidance. The placemaking principles outlined in Appendix A are also very high level, and therefore do provide sufficient flexibility to ensure LPAs can adapt them to suit their respective needs. For example, the ‘Ambitious Density’ principle explains what density would be ‘sufficient’, referencing access to local amenities, public transport, social infrastructure and creative, liveable neighbourhoods, though does not state how this density should be reached. The planning policy awards LPAs the power to produce development plans which suit their area.

However, whilst providing flexibility is important, the current wording could be adjusted to emphasise that density should be maximised to meet the ambitious housing delivery targets anticipated for New Towns.

We are concerned that the wording, as currently drafted, could lead to missed opportunities to optimise housing delivery.

Question 19: Is establishing a 40% target for affordable housing an effective way of delivering an ambitious number of affordable homes?

We recommend a clear and upfront policy on affordable housing provision in New Towns. To ensure the public benefits envisioned by the New Towns Programme are achieved, affordable housing should be maximised given the acute housing need. Whilst we support the 40% affordable housing target in principle, it would be valuable to understand how this figure has been derived.

Question 20: Is the proposed planning policy on giving substantial weight in decision making to the social and economic benefits of new towns clear? 

Appendix A advises that “Substantial weight should be given to the social and economic benefits of New Towns when considering proposals for their development.” Whilst this is clear, the document lacks explanatory text. We would advocate for further detail on what development proposals should include and how planning decisions will be made.

Question 21: Do you agree with the government's approach to decision making policy on the Green Belt?

No. While the delivery of new affordable housing remains our priority, we believe that development on Green Belt land should only be considered once all other reasonable development opportunities have been fully explored and exhausted, and where it is clearly demonstrated as the only viable means of meeting housing need. Building on greenfield and Green Belt land could lead to a loss of biodiversity, amenity and open spaces, which are important placemaking principles. We encourage taking a brownfield- and greyfield-first approach where possible, prioritising new development on previously developed land.

Question 22: Do you think the proposed planning policy is sufficient for the purposes of safeguarding land for development as new towns?

N/A

Question 23: Do you think any additional planning policies are needed to support the delivery of the programme objectives?

N/A

Question 24: Do you have any views on the potential impacts of the New Towns Draft Programme on people or groups with protected characteristics?

N/A

Question 25: Is there anything else you would like to tell us that you think is relevant to this consultation but has not been covered in previous questions?

N/A

(1) New taxes and policy costs add £76,000 to the cost of building a new home

(2) Building costs higher than house prices in one in five areas, Housing Forum finds