RTPI response to the MHCLG consultation on the New Towns Draft programme
14) Do you agree with the overall government offer for proposed new town locations?
While we welcome the proposed government offer for new towns, further information is needed, particularly around how the provisions from central government will ensure that development corporations (or other appropriate delivery vehicles) have the resources, skills and expertise to properly plan and deliver new towns.
At the end of 2025 the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government published their latest update of the Local Authority Planning Capacity and Capability Survey. While the department reported improvements since the last iteration of the survey (in 2023), master planning, design codes, and digital planning were all areas where planning departments reported significant skills gaps.
Given the government’s commitment through the New Towns programme to support high-quality master planning, design codes, and innovative delivery approaches, careful thought needs to be given to how these skills gaps will be addressed, and where the skilled professionals to support the delivery of new towns will come from. We would support a skills and resourcing programme that allows new towns delivery bodies to build up in-house expertise and capacity, because we do not want to see the New Towns programme result in the significant loss of experienced planners from local planning authorities, given the impact this would have on their ability to deliver a high-performing service.
Furthermore, meaningful engagement can de-risk development, minimise potential conflict, and is essential to the long-term success of new settlements. The government’s recognition of the importance of community engagement is positive, but there needs to be further clarity within the proposals outlining how local authorities and delivery bodies will manage and facilitate place-specific, meaningful public engagement.
The funding offer is encouraging, and we would remind the government that an infrastructure-led investment approach with grant funding is vital to supporting the creation of high-quality places. Upfront investment in the immediate term produces significant benefits for places and people in the long term. High quality design and placemaking has social and environmental benefits. Research from the RTPI and Public First also concluded that well-designed places deliver long-term economic benefits realised through land value uplift.
Within the planning policy offer, the RTPI would like to see greater alignment with the forthcoming revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), particularly around a vision-led approach to transport planning and how it dovetails with new towns principles around transport connectivity, and healthy places.
We also note that the placemaking principles take a less prescriptive and more flexible approach to development density than in the revised NPPF. While we appreciate the value of flexibility, we would appreciate further information on why this approach is being pursued, given the proposals within the draft NPPF around land near railway stations.
15) Do you think there are any additional interventions that government should consider to ensure design and placemaking quality in new towns?
As mentioned in our response to question 14, serious consideration needs to be given to how delivery vehicles can best access the master-planning and design skills needed to embed design and placemaking quality within new towns from the outset of the project.
We welcome the proposed establishment of a New Towns Place Review Panel and the inclusion of placemaking principles recommended by the New Towns Taskforce. It is also important that the specific design and placemaking support, and the new towns design policy, refers to and is aligned with the forthcoming Design and Placemaking Planning Practice Guidance (DPPPG). This will allow new towns to have their own distinct design vision (facilitated by a masterplan and design code) while also adhering to all the principles of good design and placemaking.
The Royal Town Planning Institute is currently working with Mott MacDonald to develop practice advice for local planning authority town planners on embedding masterplan principles in local plan policy and would be happy to discuss this further with the government.
16) How clear do you find the proposed planning policy?
The proposed new towns planning policy as proposed could benefit from some additions to improve clarity. In line with our response to question 15, the new towns policy should specifically signpost the forthcoming Design and Placemaking PPG in relation to both plan-making (preparing masterplans and codes) and decision-making.
Additionally, as highlighted in our response to question 14, the proposed policy should align more closely with the draft NPPF policy.
17) Do you think establishing placemaking principles in the proposed planning policy is an effective way to implement the placemaking ambition of the programme?
These placemaking principles form a good basis but should include clear and specific reference to the Design and Placemaking PPG. The principles should reflect the fact that a vision-led approach to design, making use of all available design tools, will help embed multiple placemaking principles including density, healthy and safe places, environmental sustainability, and transport connectivity. A well-designed place is also one that is healthy, safe, sustainable, and promotes active travel. The wording as written does not emphasise the linkages between these principles and could be interpreted as treating the principles in a siloed manner.
Beyond policy, the importance of clear and ambitious placemaking principles should also be established through the leadership and governance structures that support new town delivery. As stated in our response to question 14, high quality design and placemaking has a long-term social and environmental benefit and is essential to creating successful places, and research from the RTPI and Public First found that well-designed places deliver long-term economic benefits realised through land value uplift. Ambitious policy needs to be aligned with unified political buy-in at the local, regional, and national level.
18) Do you think the proposed planning policy provides sufficient flexibility to new town locations to meet the placemaking principles?
No comment.
19) Is establishing a 40% target for affordable housing an effective way of delivering an ambitious number of affordable homes?
The New Towns programme should support the delivery of a high level of social and affordable housing, across tenures. Affordable housing addresses a significant housing need and would help gain the support of local communities and help them ‘buy-in’. Delivery of sub-market rent housing also results in higher absorption rates of housing into local markets which in turn enables faster build out rates, as found by the Letwin Review in 2018.
The RTPI is in favour of grant funding to support the direct delivery of affordable homes by the appropriate delivery body or local authority. This would allow developer contributions to be focused on infrastructure, nature recovery and other planning gains that would be supported via land value uplift. New developments can often face significant viability pressures, and with new requirements like the Building Safety Levy and statutory Biodiversity Net Gain, affordable housing provision is at risk of being watered down. Additionally, the existing model makes affordable housing dependent on developer contributions and unfairly disadvantages local authorities in weaker markets or without negotiating experience.
20) Is the proposed planning policy on giving substantial weight in decision-making to the social and economic benefits of new towns clear?
Yes.
21) Do you agree with the government’s approach to decision-making policy on the Green Belt?
The RTPI is supportive of strategic and targeted release of Green Belt land and consider that if New Town development in the Green Belt had to take place, this would probably qualify as suitably strategic and appropriate to meet the very special circumstances threshold. Additionally, new towns should aim where possible to best utilise land that would meet the criteria for grey belt land.
Large urban extensions in Green Belt areas will likely trigger the need for, or result from, strategic Green Belt reviews. Given the forthcoming NPPF, new combined authorities, and strategic development strategies (SDSs) emerging through the devolution agenda, new town development proposals on existing Green Belts will need to be managed carefully amid these changes.
22) Do you think the proposed planning policy is sufficient for the purposes of safeguarding land for development as new towns?
No comment.
23) Do you think any additional planning policies are needed to support the delivery of the programme objectives?
We do not consider that additional planning policies are necessarily needed to support the delivery of programme objectives but would encourage the government to carefully consider how the forthcoming NPPF and its new suite of decision-making policies will interact with new town policy and placemaking principles.
24) Do you have any views on any potential impacts of the New Towns Draft Programme on people or groups with protected characteristics?
No comment.
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?
No comment.
