Sites for Labour's New Towns that already have rail connections

[Bletchleyite]

The MK one will probably just be building on surface car parks (there's basically a ring of them around CMK, this will be the periphery it's talking about).

The "rapid transit system" proposed is a sham, just involving bodykitted bendybuses like Liverpool's nonsensical scheme on a limited set of routes that don't include the three busiest (4, 5 and 6). Just do buses properly!

 

[Brubulus]

The MK one will probably just be building on surface car parks (there's basically a ring of them around CMK, this will be the periphery it's talking about).

The "rapid transit system" proposed is a sham, just involving bodykitted bendybuses like Liverpool's nonsensical scheme on a limited set of routes that don't include the three busiest (4, 5 and 6). Just do buses properly!

What would be cool would be a light metro/tram system that enables large scale densification, though the use of the term rapid transit always gives false hope. Can someone explain to me what the benefit of "rapid transit vehicles" over buses is?

 

[Bletchleyite]

What would be cool would be a light metro/tram system that enables large scale densification, though the use of the term rapid transit always gives false hope.

Large scale densification of MK is a non starter. You would need to demolish the whole thing and start again, unless you're proposing building on parkland to which I give a very firm "no". Thus new New Towns are the way to achieve this, not messing with MK.

Generally newer estates are denser than old ones, this is the best that can likely be achieved. A demolition and redevelopment of Netherfield and Tinkers Bridge maybe (very poor quality tin shed style housing) but not really otherwise.

Can someone explain to me what the benefit of "rapid transit vehicles" over buses is?

None whatsoever. This scheme will just be a waste of money and damaging to the rest of the network.

Whst MK justifies is a subsidised network of high quality electric buses covering the whole city (and a small number of bus lanes in congestion hotspots), not flagship routes with pretend trams.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

Can someone explain to me what the benefit of "rapid transit vehicles" over buses is?

There is none, they've just got a bendy bus and given it a fancy name.

 

[Fidelis]

Not sure if it’s been previously mentioned in this thread but Worcestershire Parklands, based around Worcestershire Parkway, has been proposed and is on the list of sites on the BBC New Towns article this morning. I seem to remember when Parkway was being built many commentators saying it was a pointless station with no purpose. But it is the classic example of build it and they will come.

You may be interested to learn that the second phase of planning for Worcestershire Parkway Town has gone to Wychavon DC which contained plans for : -
A town centre to include a 100-bed hotel, a 50-bed care home, a health centre with around seven GPs, and a range of retail spaces, including cafes, and office buildings.

A SEND school, two primary schools, one secondary school, a sixth form, and an 'all-through' school is proposed, along with a faith/library building, and a community building.
A combined 50 acres of employment land would also be built across the site

If plans are passed, building work is expected to start between 2027 and 2028,
The 5,500-home application is part of a wider 10,000-home plan for the site, which is expected to be completed over the next 20 years.

 

[Magdalia]

For a long while now I have been expecting a local authority turf war over who gets Tempsford New Town.

The first skirmishes are now happening see BBC report here:

Boundary change is highway robbery, says Bedfordshire councillor

Documents show places in Bedfordshire could become part of a new Cambridgeshire council area.

www.bbc.co.uk

The leader of a council has described the possibility of a local authority taking land from a neighbouring county as "highway robbery".
Adam Zerny, from Central Bedfordshire Council, said Huntingdonshire District Council documents showed that Roxton, Wyboston and Chawston, Tempsford, Everton and Sandy, all in Bedfordshire, could be absorbed into a new Cambridgeshire authority.
Councillors have been discussing how local authorities should be replaced with newly created unitary authorities.
Huntingdonshire District Council said it was not "currently proposing any boundary changes".
Zerny, an independent councillor, said government guidance indicated that any standalone unitary council should have a population of at least 500,000, but Huntingdonshire currently has about 186,000 residents.
A Huntingdonshire District Council report said that construction of a new town in Tempsford, Bedfordshire, would have about 317,000 residents by 2040, the Local Democracy Reporting Service said.

317000 residents in Tempsford by 2040 seems unrealistic: even if they started now that would require more than 20000 new residents per year for 15 years to get to more than 300000 by 2040, and that's notwithstanding the question of whether there is enough land for a town that big.

But a standalone Huntingdonshire unitary authority only really makes sense if it includes Tempsford, and a big Tempsford. Huntingdonshire as a standalone unitary authority would have a strong incentive to grow Tempsford, and quickly.

 

[Technologist]

For a long while now I have been expecting a local authority turf war over who gets Tempsford New Town.

The first skirmishes are now happening see BBC report here:

Boundary change is highway robbery, says Bedfordshire councillor

Documents show places in Bedfordshire could become part of a new Cambridgeshire council area.

www.bbc.co.uk

317000 residents in Tempsford by 2040 seems unrealistic: even if they started now that would require more than 20000 new residents per year for 15 years to get to more than 300000 by 2040, and that's notwithstanding the question of whether there is enough land for a town that big.

But a standalone Huntingdonshire unitary authority only really makes sense if it includes Tempsford, and a big Tempsford. Huntingdonshire as a standalone unitary authority would have a strong incentive to grow Tempsford, and quickly.

Something I came across recently in the policy space:

The "Cheems Mindset" (Cheems is on the right)

Essentially it is the belief that policy difficulties are iron laws of nature which should not be tackled.

If the nation wanted to make a new town of any size below literal millions of people it could be done in 15 years it's just a matter of political will and organisation. There is an argument as to whether it would be unproductive to have it grow that fast. I actually think a "we choose to create a new city in 15 years not because it is easy but because it is hard" is probably the sort of thing that actually could move the dial in politics and restore faith in the power and ability of the state. However I don't think it matches the style of our current leadership.

There is a lot of "Cheems Mindset" in Rail and British Industry in general.

cheems mindset

Welcome to Normielisation, a semi-regular newsletter looking at British politics, culture and society

normielisation.substack.com

 

[Mgameing123]

Something I came across recently in the policy space:

The "Cheems Mindset" (Cheems is on the right)

Essentially it is the belief that policy difficulties are iron laws of nature which should not be tackled.

If the nation wanted to make a new town of any size below literal millions of people it could be done in 15 years it's just a matter of political will and organisation. There is an argument as to whether it would be unproductive to have it grow that fast. I actually think a "we choose to create a new city in 15 years not because it is easy but because it is hard" is probably the sort of thing that actually could move the dial in politics and restore faith in the power and ability of the state. However I don't think it matches the style of our current leadership.

There is a lot of "Cheems Mindset" in Rail and British Industry in general.

cheems mindset

Welcome to Normielisation, a semi-regular newsletter looking at British politics, culture and society

normielisation.substack.com

I agree, ambition isn’t something that the UK has.

 

[HSTEd]

You could pump out houses extremely fast if you used manufactured housing/functionally fancy static caravans.

Infrastructure built of prefab buildings of the type used in ski resorts. Urban ropeway public transport could be operational in months.

Especially if you forget about a gas grid and just go for electricity, data, water and sewerage. District heat might be worth it but would require significantly more work.

The limiting factor on housing completion would likely be road construction and fencing.

If people want to put more conventional housing on their plots later, fine. But it would get a lot of people into less crowded housing rapidly.

 

[urbophile]

Cities built hundreds (thousands?) of prefabs on brownfield sites after WW2. If it could be done then, it can be done now. And considering the technological advances especially with insulation, solar panels, modular construction they would be built as quickly, could look much more attractive, be more effecient and last longer. Much more should be done within existing cities before large scale green belt development anyway.

 

[Magdalia]

There was an important announcement yesterday about changes to the National Planning Policy Framework.

BBC has a report here:

Government rolls back nature protections to boost housing

Critics say government changes to a flagship biodiversity policy could stall nature recovery.

www.bbc.co.uk

More housing developments will be exempt from rules requiring builders in England to improve wildlife habitats, the government said on Tuesday.

Ministers have been reviewing rules known as Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG), under which builders must compensate for the loss of nature on housing developments.

Increasing the size of exempted developments has sparked anger from nature charities, who warned it risked stalling nature recovery.

The changes are part of an overhaul of planning rules which the government said would help achieve its target of building 1.5 million new homes in this Parliament.

This report leads on the biodiversity aspect, but the item on Radio 4 PM this evening led on proposed changes to building near railway stations.

Other reforms include giving a "default yes" to planning applications near railway stations, including on green belt land,

Evan Davis interviewed Sam Dimitriu of Britain Remade, who gave more details. There would be a presumption to build, at density of up to 50 homes per hectare, on land within 800 metres of an existing railway station. If I have done my maths right I think this is a maximum of about 10k homes for a railway station surrounded by fields?

In some cases not all land within 800 metres of a station will be suitable for building, for example because it is flood plain, but I can think of a few examples near here of stations where houses could be built.

 

[Merle Haggard]

In Northamptonshire all the stations with fields around them closed in the 1960s. Not many people used them, for some reason...

 

[Topological]

There was an important announcement yesterday about changes to the National Planning Policy Framework.

BBC has a report here:

Government rolls back nature protections to boost housing

Critics say government changes to a flagship biodiversity policy could stall nature recovery.

www.bbc.co.uk

This report leads on the biodiversity aspect, but the item on Radio 4 PM this evening led on proposed changes to building near railway stations.


Evan Davis interviewed Sam Dimitriu of Britain Remade, who gave more details. There would be a presumption to build, at density of up to 50 homes per hectare, on land within 800 metres of an existing railway station. If I have done my maths right I think this is a maximum of about 10k homes for a railway station surrounded by fields?

In some cases not all land within 800 metres of a station will be suitable for building, for example because it is flood plain, but I can think of a few examples near here of stations where houses could be built.

Finally a sensible decision.

However, it should be subject to a minimum density or we will see low density houses thrown up.

 

[The exile]

Evan Davis interviewed Sam Dimitriu of Britain Remade, who gave more details. There would be a presumption to build, at density of up to 50 homes per hectare, on land within 800 metres of an existing railway station. If I have done my maths right I think this is a maximum of about 10k homes for a railway station surrounded by fields?

Cue a load of backtracking on campaigns to get the local station reopened!

 

[Magdalia]

I have now found my way to the consultation document which is here:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6941965758a21370f58f304e/Draft_NPPF_December_2025.pdf

It isn't easy to quote from, as it has lots of footnotes, but I think these are the relevant bits:

S5: Principle of development outside settlements 1. Only certain forms of development should be approved outside settlements, as set out in the following list. These should be approved, unless the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects, when assessed against the national decision-making policies in this Framework: h. Development for housing and mixed-use development which would be: within reasonable walking distance of a railway station which provides a high level of connectivity to jobs and services (26); physically well-related to a railway station or a settlement within which the station is located; is of a scale which can be accommodated taking into account the existing or proposed availability of infrastructure; and where the development would not prejudice any proposals for long-term comprehensive development in the same location;
26 Well-connected rail stations and underground, tram and light rail stops are those in a top 60 Travel to Work Area located partially or fully within England by Gross Value Added (GVA) and which, in the normal weekday timetable, are served (or have a reasonable prospect of being served due to planned upgrades or through agreement with the rail operator) throughout the daytime by four trains or trams per hour overall, or two trains or trams per hour in any one direction.

L3: Achieving appropriate densities 3. Minimum densities for residential development proposals are appropriate in locations which provide high levels of connectivity to jobs and services. Where development proposals for housing or mixed-use schemes are within reasonable walking distance of a railway station (44), a density of at least 40 dwellings per hectare should be achieved within the net developable area of the site, or 50 dwellings per hectare where the station or stop is defined as ‘well-connected’(45). 4. Development proposals that do not make efficient use of land in accordance with this policy should be refused. 44 For the purpose of this policy references to railway stations also includes stops on underground, tram and other light rail systems. 45 Well-connected rail stations and underground, tram and light rail stops are those in a top 60 Travel to Work Area located partially or fully within England by Gross Value Added (GVA) and which, in the normal weekday timetable, are served (or have a reasonable prospect of being served due to planned upgrades or through agreement with the rail operator) throughout the daytime by four trains or trams per hour overall, or two trains or trams per hour in any one direction.

GB7: Development which is not inappropriate in the Green Belt 1. The following categories of development are not inappropriate in the Green Belt, and therefore should not be regarded as harmful to the Green Belt or required to demonstrate very special circumstances: h. Development for housing and mixed-use development which would: i. be within reasonable walking distance of a railway station capable of providing a high level of connectivity to services and employment (52); ii. be physically well-related to a railway station or a settlement within which the station is located; iii. be of a scale which can be accommodated taking into account the existing or proposed availability of infrastructure; iv. not prejudice any proposals for long-term comprehensive development in the same location; v. in the case of major development, comply with policy GB8. 52 Well-connected rail stations and underground, tram and light rail stops are those in a top 60 Travel to Work Area located partially or fully within England by Gross Value Added (GVA) and which, in the normal weekday timetable, are served (or have a reasonable prospect of being served due to planned upgrades or through agreement with the rail operator) throughout the daytime by four trains or trams per hour overall, or two trains per hour in any one direction.

I hope that works ok when I press post!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Dec 2025 ==

However, it should be subject to a minimum density or we will see low density houses thrown up.

My reading is that the densities are minima not maxima, me getting the wrong impression from the interview.

In Northamptonshire all the stations with fields around them closed in the 1960s. Not many people used them, for some reason...

Northamptonshire is not going to be affected very much by the rail related bits here!

Cue a load of backtracking on campaigns to get the local station reopened!

And, reading the footnotes, users of lots of stations with 1tph suddenly deciding that 2tph is not such a good idea after all.

 

[Topological]

I have now found my way to the consultation document which is here:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6941965758a21370f58f304e/Draft_NPPF_December_2025.pdf

It isn't easy to quote from, as it has lots of footnotes, but I think these are the relevant bits:




I hope that works ok when I press post!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Dec 2025 ==


My reading is that the densities are minima not maxima, me getting the wrong impression from the interview.


Northamptonshire is not going to be affected very much by the rail related bits here!


And, reading the footnotes, users of lots of stations with 1tph suddenly deciding that 2tph is not such a good idea after all.

Thank you for posting those.

I am glad there is a minima, maybe it should be higher.

I suspect we will see a lot of plans for the Manchester to Crewe line (for example) as all of the local stops there would have development potential. Possibly Sandbach does not, but I still feel like there are still sites covered by this announcement. Same with Nantwich, Whitchurch and Wem.

 

[urbophile]

I have now found my way to the consultation document which is here:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6941965758a21370f58f304e/Draft_NPPF_December_2025.pdf

It isn't easy to quote from, as it has lots of footnotes, but I think these are the relevant bits:




I hope that works ok when I press post!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Dec 2025 ==


My reading is that the densities are minima not maxima, me getting the wrong impression from the interview.

<<a density of at least 40 dwellings per hectare should be achieved within the net developable area of the site, or 50 dwellings per hectare where the station or stop is defined as ‘well-connected’(45). >>

Can you give us a rough idea of what that density would look like? A traditional built-up townscape with lots of terrace housing and/or flats, or an 'executive' estate consisting of large detached houses in large gardens, or somewhere in between?

 

[bspahh]

<<a density of at least 40 dwellings per hectare should be achieved within the net developable area of the site, or 50 dwellings per hectare where the station or stop is defined as ‘well-connected’(45). >>

Can you give us a rough idea of what that density would look like? A traditional built-up townscape with lots of terrace housing and/or flats, or an 'executive' estate consisting of large detached houses in large gardens, or somewhere in between?

Page 3 of this report has some pictures of housing at 40, 70 and 120 dwellings per Hectare

 

[Topological]

Should definitely be 70 then.

Cheshire will be one big station*, they might even have to double the missing sections between Altrincham and Stockport.

* Stations spaced at the minimum distance to get permission for the maximum land, not actually continuous platforms.

 

[Wolfie]

There was an important announcement yesterday about changes to the National Planning Policy Framework.

BBC has a report here:

Government rolls back nature protections to boost housing

Critics say government changes to a flagship biodiversity policy could stall nature recovery.

www.bbc.co.uk

This report leads on the biodiversity aspect, but the item on Radio 4 PM this evening led on proposed changes to building near railway stations.


Evan Davis interviewed Sam Dimitriu of Britain Remade, who gave more details. There would be a presumption to build, at density of up to 50 homes per hectare, on land within 800 metres of an existing railway station. If I have done my maths right I think this is a maximum of about 10k homes for a railway station surrounded by fields?

In some cases not all land within 800 metres of a station will be suitable for building, for example because it is flood plain, but I can think of a few examples near here of stations where houses could be built.

It would be unsurprising if a judicial review of that decision was sought.

 

[Merle Haggard]

Northamptonshire is not going to be affected very much by the rail related bits here!

King's Sutton station does have some fields nearby, but they're in Oxfordshire. Lucky Oxon, hope they appreciate the opportunity!

A Google search showed the Northamptonshire managed a population growth of very nearly a quarter between 2002 and 2024 so it seems to be doing o.k.even on the present planning rules.

 

[BrianW]

Cue a load of backtracking on campaigns to get the local station reopened!

It has been clear for some time that those wanting a new station, or a line repoening, MUST accept new housing with it. Clear to those with eyes to see anyway.

 

[JKF]

I still think Pilning is a good fit for this, surrounded by flat unspectacular farmland to all sides. Possibly some flood plain issues but that’s not something that can’t be resolved. With improved frequency of Bristol-Cardiff trains in the pipeline it would be an attractive spot to live.

 

[Topological]

I still think Pilning is a good fit for this, surrounded by flat unspectacular farmland to all sides. Possibly some flood plain issues but that’s not something that can’t be resolved. With improved frequency of Bristol-Cardiff trains in the pipeline it would be an attractive spot to live.

Very much so.

Presumably, something that served Bristol Parkway would be arranged as well so that residents could get to London easily.

Might even attract a call in the Cardiff to London IF sufficient houses were built.

 

[BrianW]

<<a density of at least 40 dwellings per hectare should be achieved within the net developable area of the site, or 50 dwellings per hectare where the station or stop is defined as ‘well-connected’(45). >>

Can you give us a rough idea of what that density would look like? A traditional built-up townscape with lots of terrace housing and/or flats, or an 'executive' estate consisting of large detached houses in large gardens, or somewhere in between?

Page 3 of this report has some pictures of housing at 40, 70 and 120 dwellings per Hectare

View attachment 194089

There's a world of difference between 40, 70 or 120 one-person dwellings and 40, 70 or 120 five-bedroom dweliings.
Car densities of one per dwelling, or two, or none are also important.
Car-sharing and active travel are further considerations.
Higher densities also promote community in addition to facilities, eg shops, surgeries, clubs for eg youth, families and older people.

 

[Barclay]

Lichfields (planning consultants) have been unpicking this a bit in a blog. They work on the basis that stations eligible stations are those which have either four departures an hour or two in one direction through the daytime. Plus those which have a reasonable prospect of being served due to planned upgrades or through agreement with the rail operator.

See https://lichfields.uk/blog/2025/dec...nppf-might-unlock-growth-around-rail-stations

 

[lachlan]

Very much so.

Presumably, something that served Bristol Parkway would be arranged as well so that residents could get to London easily.

Might even attract a call in the Cardiff to London IF sufficient houses were built.

Pilning could also serve Severn Beach if a decent walking and cycling route was built between the two.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Pilning could also serve Severn Beach if a decent walking and cycling route was built between the two.

Severn Beach has a station. Pilning would provide a service the other way away from Bristol but is there much demand for that?

 

[pokemonsuper9]

Severn Beach has a station. Pilning would provide a service the other way away from Bristol but is there much demand for that?

Pilning - Bristol is 20 minutes
Severn Beach - Bristol is 40 minutes.

If it had a better service it would be quicker to drive to Pilning from Severn Beach than get the direct train.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Pilning - Bristol is 20 minutes
Severn Beach - Bristol is 40 minutes.

That it is, but unless you get between the two by car (in which case footpath provision is irrelevant) you'll use those 20 minutes walking/cycling there. And the rest if you walk - even as the crow flies it's about 3km.

I think at one point there was a proposal to close the Severn Beach branch north of Avonmouth, in that case Pilning might have been more important.