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

[lachlan]

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

If somehow a refurbished/resited Pilning was added to the London bound trains as someone suggested above I could see that being very popular given the success of Parkway. Without that, Filton and Cardiff would attract commuters but it should be tied into development of the empty land around Pilning and Severn Beach.

 

[RT4038]

I can think of a few stations where the locals will be most unhappy - Whitlocks End, Wythall, The Lakes, Wood End, Danzey, Henley in Arden, Wootton Wawen, Bearley, Wilmcote, Claverdon, Hatton, Lapworth .......

 

[Bletchleyite]

I can think of a few stations where the locals will be most unhappy - Whitlocks End, Wythall, The Lakes, Wood End, Danzey, Henley in Arden, Wootton Wawen, Bearley, Wilmcote, Claverdon, Hatton, Lapworth .......

You can't make an omelette, as it were...

Bicester is one that seems to have suffered in that regard - when I first knew it it was a small market town with quite a pleasant centre, these days it's just grown too quickly and the centre isn't nice any more (I guess the locals just head to Oxford for a nice centre to spend time in?). I do think Winslow is going to go that way.

 

[lachlan]

You can't make an omelette, as it were...

Bicester is one that seems to have suffered in that regard - when I first knew it it was a small market town with quite a pleasant centre, these days it's just grown too quickly and the centre isn't nice any more (I guess the locals just head to Oxford for a nice centre to spend time in?). I do think Winslow is going to go that way.

The new area to the south with the self-builds is neat but the walking route from there to the station is really poor. Closing the level crossing to cars would make the area feel much less car dominated. A walking route over the railway to Tesco and possibly Bicester Village could reduce car dependency. Sadly it felt completely disjointed and an example of how not to do things.

 

[brad465]

Any chance we might get the reverse? That is, a default "yes" to approving any new station with 1000+ homes within an 800m radius of its proposed location? 10,000+ homes is enough for a default yes on a new rail link to connect to them.

 

[Dr Day]

Any chance we might get the reverse? That is, a default "yes" to approving any new station with 1000+ homes within an 800m radius of its proposed location? 10,000+ homes is enough for a default yes on a new rail link to connect to them.

Or continuing that theme, closure of stations or lines which don’t have enough people?

 

[Magdalia]

Any chance we might get the reverse? That is, a default "yes" to approving any new station with 1000+ homes within an 800m radius of its proposed location? 10,000+ homes is enough for a default yes on a new rail link to connect to them.

You are out by a factor of 10, and the homes need to be new.

>10k new homes will get a new station, for example Waterbeach.

>100k new homes will get a new railway, for example the eastern leg of East West Rail serving Tempsford and Cambourne.

 

[brad465]

You are out by a factor of 10, and the homes need to be new.

>10k new homes will get a new station, for example Waterbeach.

>100k new homes will get a new railway, for example the eastern leg of East West Rail serving Tempsford and Cambourne.

Do they have to be new? Wellington and Cullompton stations got approval despite neither town having 10,000 new homes coming their way (although there are new homes being built that pushed the business case over the line). They probably don't even have 10,000 homes of any description in the two places combined. 100k homes for a new railway though probably stacks up better I'll give you that.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Dec 2025 ==

Or continuing that theme, closure of stations or lines which don’t have enough people?

I did previously suggest closing stations which don't see more than a few thousand passengers a year as a trade-off to get new stations in more viable locations built, but apparently this isn't anywhere near a comparable trade-off running cost-wise.

 

[Dr Day]

As well as homes there needs to be jobs too. Whilst ideally the new homes and the new jobs should be in the same place so people can walk or cycle from one to the other, at least have them on the same line.

Just because a town has a station doesn’t mean people living there necessarily want to go to the place the trains go to.

I’m not a development planner but still seems as though the volume and locations of job is left to the economy and market but every local authority has a homes targets irrespective of where the jobs are. And as others have said, targets appear to be for numbers of homes, not accommodation of x working age people, y retired and z children etc in suitably sized but still high density units for everyone to do what they need to do with minimal reliance on a car.

 

[BrianW]

You can't make an omelette, as it were...

Bicester is one that seems to have suffered in that regard - when I first knew it it was a small market town with quite a pleasant centre, these days it's just grown too quickly and the centre isn't nice any more (I guess the locals just head to Oxford for a nice centre to spend time in?). I do think Winslow is going to go that way.

The new area to the south with the self-builds is neat but the walking route from there to the station is really poor. Closing the level crossing to cars would make the area feel much less car dominated. A walking route over the railway to Tesco and possibly Bicester Village could reduce car dependency. Sadly it felt completely disjointed and an example of how not to do things.

Bicester as it has been expanded is the antithesis of Planning. It is the response of locals and their District Council to the government plans for an Eco-town at Weston Otmoor. Housing developers have picked therir spots ,bought and sold at advantageous times to a 'housing mix' and designs designed tom sell at a good profit. 'Social housing', even 'affordable units' very much an afterthought. The 'self-build' section is a good innovation.

Even Sainsburys threatened to not build when Tesco sold out to Bicester Village and built an enlarged store. Market economy town, not planned.

As well as homes there needs to be jobs too. Whilst ideally the new homes and the new jobs should be in the same place so people can walk or cycle from one to the other, at least have them on the same line.

Just because a town has a station doesn’t mean people living there necessarily want to go to the place the trains go to.

I’m not a development planner but still seems as though the volume and locations of job is left to the economy and market but every local authority has a homes targets irrespective of where the jobs are. And as others have said, targets appear to be for numbers of homes, not accommodation of x working age people, y retired and z children etc in suitably sized but still high density units for everyone to do what they need to do with minimal reliance on a car.

Jobs? Previous governments have tried 'directing' private and foreign investment to 'deprived areas', like the North-east, South Wales.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Dec 2025 ==

Do they have to be new? Wellington and Cullompton stations got approval despite neither town having 10,000 new homes coming their way (although there are new homes being built that pushed the business case over the line). They probably don't even have 10,000 homes of any description in the two places combined. 100k homes for a new railway though probably stacks up better I'll give you that.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Dec 2025 ==


I did previously suggest closing stations which don't see more than a few thousand passengers a year as a trade-off to get new stations in more viable locations built, but apparently this isn't anywhere near a comparable trade-off running cost-wise.

Wellington and Cullompton- I suugest they will come under pressure to accept additional housing in support for their new stations, and the investment made in them.

 

[brad465]

Wellington and Cullompton- I suugest they will come under pressure to accept additional housing in support for their new stations, and the investment made in them.

Having had another look in response, Cullompton station is linked to Culm Garden Village, with 5,000 new homes planned (so why it's called a village beats me), so this probably already has the additional housing you allude to. Wellington on the other hand only has another 200, on top of what was already being built prior to the station approval, which makes sense given this town is already much larger than Cullompton:

Cullompton railway station to be revived

Funding is secured to build a new station on the main line at Cullompton.

www.bbc.co.uk

A Devon town will get a new railway station after a "significant victory" in winning funding.
A campaign to build a new station on the main line at Cullompton has been going on for years and campaigners say it is key to unlocking the building of 5,000 homes nearby in the Culm Garden Village development.
Richard Foord, Liberal Democrat MP for Honiton and Sidmouth, said there was an "irrefutable business case" for reopening the station and also welcomed the reopening of Wellington station further up the line in Somerset.
The Chancellor made no mention of the scheme in the Spending Review on Wednesday but HM Treasury officials confirmed the funding to MPs later in the day.

The new station will be built next to the motorway services at junction 28 of the M5.

Cullompton station initially opened in 1844 and was rebuilt in 1931, before closing in 1964 as part of the Beeching cuts.

The town is also pushing ahead with a £34m relief road for Cullompton which had funding approved in 2024.

Foord said he had worked with his colleague Gideon Amos, Liberal Democrat MP for Taunton and Wellington, on pressing the case for both stations with the government.

He said: "It has been a long campaign over many years, with hundreds of people determined to secure this historic outcome."

The new town though that shouldn't have got approval on current wider policy is Marlcombe, the 8,000 home + employment space development south of Exeter airport as mentioned upthread. There is no rail link here, and not even a historic railway that could be reopened to serve it. If it had been north of Exeter village as an expansion of Cranbrook however this would be better, not least as it would improve the case for the Devon metro to Axminster and associated double-tracking.

 

[Magdalia]

Some news on Milton Keynes here:

Homes in Milton Keynes and Bedfordshire criticised by charity

Campaigners say it might be "one more nail in the coffin" for the countryside.

www.bbc.co.uk

A proposed housing development that would straddle the boundary of two counties would be "one more nail in the coffin" for the countryside, a charity has said.
A planning application was submitted last month for up to 3,500 homes on land next to the M1 in Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire, but also on land in neighbouring central Bedfordshire.
The Bedfordshire branch of the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) said the plans were concerning.
Hallam Land, the developer, said the site had been designed to help meet "local aspirations".
The Keepers Place development, external is part of Milton Keynes City Council's local plan, external, which sets out where housing should be built up until 2050.

Not strictly new town, but next to the railway, is this at Rackheath, near Salhouse on the Sheringham branch:

Major expansion of Rackheath set for council approval

Developers plan to build 3,850 properties but critics say not enough will be affordable homes.

www.bbc.co.uk

A major expansion of a village including the construction of 3,850 homes and three schools is set to be approved.

The population of Rackheath, Norfolk, is likely to increase from just over 2,000 to more than 11,000 under developer Taylor Wimpey's plans.

Parish councils in and around the village, which is north of Norwich, have raised concerns about how the area's infrastructure will cope, as well as a lack of affordable homes.

The proposals, first put forward in 2022, are expected to be backed by Broadland District Council's planning committee next week.

 

[lachlan]

Some news on Milton Keynes here:

Homes in Milton Keynes and Bedfordshire criticised by charity

Campaigners say it might be "one more nail in the coffin" for the countryside.

www.bbc.co.uk

Not strictly new town, but next to the railway, is this at Rackheath, near Salhouse on the Sheringham branch:

Major expansion of Rackheath set for council approval

Developers plan to build 3,850 properties but critics say not enough will be affordable homes.

www.bbc.co.uk

The Milton Keynes development does not look like a good location for rail connectivity and given its right next to the motorway will encourage car dependency. And of course the environment will be noisy and polluted for those houses near the motorway.

Salhouse meanwhile at a glance looks a lot better. Hopefully calls at Salhouse station can be increased.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The Milton Keynes development does not look like a good location for rail connectivity and given its right next to the motorway will encourage car dependency. And of course the environment will be noisy and polluted for those houses near the motorway.

This is just natural Milton Keynes expansion. The A5, which is basically a motorway, slips unnoticed through west MK without disrupting estates near it.

MK certainly needs better public transport (which is always likely to be bus based) but this is not something to be objected to, it's simply natural expansion of the city, most of which will be away from direct rail simply because of where the city is. The primary destination for employment will be within MK; London commuters are unlikely to choose to move somewhere like this, and other commuting from MK is fairly small in numbers.

 

[lachlan]

This is just natural Milton Keynes expansion. The A5, which is basically a motorway, slips unnoticed through west MK without disrupting estates near it.

MK certainly needs better public transport (which is always likely to be bus based) but this is not something to be objected to, it's simply natural expansion of the city, most of which will be away from direct rail simply because of where the city is. The primary destination for employment will be within MK; London commuters are unlikely to choose to move somewhere like this, and other commuting from MK is fairly small in numbers.

My memory from visiting a few times is the car noise. How many people will use the redways to get to CMK?We should be densifying already urban areas rather than building more sprawl which just leads to more car traffic.

I have sympathy towards the "Milton Keynes is a city designed for the car and it should stay that way" argument but if we buy into that, the new developments should follow the existing grid system.

 

[Bletchleyite]

My memory from visiting a few times is the car noise.

You get used to it and tune it out. If you're up at 3-4am it's more noticeable by its absence. A bit like the way if you're used to church bells every hour through the night (as I was in my childhood home) it's a bit odd when you move somewhere else and it's gone.

How many people will use the redways to get to CMK?

Very few that far out. It's bus or car. The Dutch style (ish) Redways are great, but realistically the maximum journey length people will do en masse on them is going to be around 3 miles, so the periphery of MK isn't really applicable to it, though they might cycle to Newport Pagnell or the Kingston Tesco.

We should be densifying already urban areas rather than building more sprawl which just leads to more car traffic.

I have sympathy towards the "Milton Keynes is a city designed for the car and it should stay that way" argument but if we buy into that, the new developments should follow the existing grid system.

I don't think you will find a single resident of MK who doesn't agree that the grid should be expanded. Sadly developers and the Council don't, they prefer playing with hair brained nonsense like "city streets" (which you can still do within the grid), and if we lose MK City Council in favour of a new unitary including places like Bedford, Northampton and Luton (as looks likely, and with whom we have basically nothing in common as a unique new city) it'll get even worse.

As regards public transport, the best you're likely to be able to do is to move to electric buses and commit to ongoing subsidy so frequencies and coverage is usable (it's not at present on the almost entirely commercial network, except on the 4/5/6 which do wash their face at decent frequencies due to them running through poor areas with low car ownership). The Council has a hair brained fake tram scheme in mind, but I can't see it actually ever happening and nor should it - conventional (but European quality and electric) bus with strategically located bus lanes and overtakes is what makes sense.

As to densifying what's there, it's hard to do that without destroying the grid, as few will want to live right next to 60/70mph roads (or even if dropped to 40/50), that leaves you with demolition which isn't going to work given the high cost of compulsory purchase to do so. And removing green space is not the right way to go either. There is some fill in development that can be done, and there's scope for more business-residential change of use in the city centre where very high density is accepted, but I think really if you want a New Town like that building a completely new one is going to be the way to go.

 

[lachlan]

You get used to it and tune it out. If you're up at 3-4am it's more noticeable by its absence. A bit like the way if you're used to church bells every hour through the night (as I was in my childhood home) it's a bit odd when you move somewhere else and it's gone.



Very few that far out. It's bus or car. The Dutch style (ish) Redways are great, but realistically the maximum journey length people will do en masse on them is going to be around 3 miles, so the periphery of MK isn't really applicable to it, though they might cycle to Newport Pagnell or the Kingston Tesco.




I don't think you will find a single resident of MK who doesn't agree that the grid should be expanded. Sadly developers and the Council don't, and if we lose MK City Council in favour of a new unitary including places like Bedford, Northampton and Luton (as looks likely, and with whom we have basically nothing in common as a unique new city) it'll get even worse.

As regards public transport, the best you're likely to be able to do is to move to electric buses and commit to ongoing subsidy so frequencies and coverage is usable (it's not at present on the almost entirely commercial network, except on the 4/5/6 which do wash their face at decent frequencies due to them running through poor areas with low car ownership). The Council has a hair brained fake tram scheme in mind, but I can't see it actually ever happening and nor should it - conventional (but European quality and electric) bus with strategically located bus lanes and overtakes is what makes sense.

I can't argue with any of this. I guess it comes down to my view that we just shouldn't be building houses in places which don't have good rail and/or bus connectivity. I believe we should be rapidly building more houses, but only in the right places.

Milton Keynes has a lot of potential to be a cycle-first city with the redways IMO, but from my admittedly limited experience they aren't maintained to a high standard and the city centre just feels like a big car park. It was nice cycling on dedicated paths, but I felt like a second-class citizen as I wasn't using a car.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I can't argue with any of this. I guess it comes down to my view that we just shouldn't be building houses in places which don't have good rail and/or bus connectivity.

No reason it can't have good bus connectivity there, it's just going to cost in subsidy. Cars can move fast on the grid but so can buses.

Milton Keynes has a lot of potential to be a cycle-first city with the redways IMO, but from my admittedly limited experience they aren't maintained to a high standard and the city centre just feels like a big car park

The Redways are fine to use with a suitable cycle (not a road bike! You really want a sit-up hybrid with medium width tyres) but distances are too great and it's surprisingly hilly. E-bikes help but then they're nicked like there's no tomorrow (though bewaakte Fietsenstallingen - staffed storage facilities - would help) but you're still going to have long journey times from the outer edges to the centre. Really a cycle-first city can't be much bigger than the likes of Coventry, and something like Lancaster or Durham is probably more ideal (though would need e-bikes due to the hills).

What you could consider doing is trams with people not near them encouraged to cycle to stops, I suppose. But that's quite costly.

Electric buses and high adoption of electric cars (plus promoting cycling for shorter trips of up to 3 miles max) is probably the best you're going to do without nuking it from orbit and starting again. I suppose you could just put a block on expansion and build elsewhere, but we do need housing and in a new town you don't get too much NIMBYism (you do get some).

 

[al green]

This is just natural Milton Keynes expansion. The A5, which is basically a motorway, slips unnoticed through west MK without disrupting estates near it.

There is no comparison between the A5 and M1. A5 is two lane and mainly cars, relatively little traffic at night. The M1 is 4 lanes and lots of HGVs. At night it's HGVs nose to tail all night long. HGVs are far noisier than cars.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Feb 2026 ==

I don't think you will find a single resident of MK who doesn't agree that the grid should be expanded. Sadly developers and the Council don't, they prefer playing with hair brained nonsense like "city streets" (which you can still do within the grid), and if we lose MK City Council in favour of a new unitary including places like Bedford, Northampton and Luton (as looks likely, and with whom we have basically nothing in common as a unique new city) it'll get even worse.

Then you don't know the residents of MK very well. I'm a resident and I don't think the grid should be expanded.

 

[Snow1964]

Slightly off topic, but relevant as it in involves Government and planning. A debate is scheduled tomorrow (24th Feb) on Impacts of planning development on Transport

There will be a Westminster Hall debate on the impact of planning developments on local transport on 24 February 2026. The debate will be opened by Victoria Collins MP (Lib Dem, Harpenden and Berkhamsted).

Impact of planning developments on local transport​

Local transport includes local roads, parking, buses, taxis and private hire vehicles, light rail and active travel (cycling, walking and wheeling).
Sections 2.3 to 2.8 of the House of Commons Library briefing ‘Who is responsible for local transport in England?’ details the responsibilities that local authorities have for different modes of transport.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10501/

 

[Magdalia]

The Rackheath planning application, for houses next to Salhouse station, has been approved.

Thousands of new homes approved for Rackheath

The plan includes three new schools and effectively creates a new town.

www.bbc.co.uk

Plans to build one of the largest housing developments in Norfolk's history have been approved, with almost 4,000 homes set to be built on a former US airbase.

Broadland District Council's planning committee unanimously backed proposals for 3,850 properties in Rackheath, a village north of Norwich, in a move that will increase the population from around 2,000 to more than 11,000.

The scheme, submitted by Taylor Wimpey, will effectively create a new town linking Rackheath with nearby Salhouse.

 

[andrewgs]

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.

The consulation on this closes today at 23:45

National Planning Policy Framework: proposed reforms and other changes to the planning system

We are seeking views on a revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and other changes to the planning system.

www.gov.uk

 

[Magdalia]

The government has responded to the New Towns Taskforce report today.

Seven new towns proposed to kickstart housebuilding push

Seven locations proposed as new towns with each location delivering at least 10,000 homes with several delivering up to 40,000.

www.gov.uk

Seven locations proposed as new towns with each location delivering at least 10,000 homes with several delivering up to 40,000.

BBC report is here:

Ministers name seven areas where 'new towns' could be built

Six sites have been deprioritised from the flagship scheme to build a wave of new settlements.

www.bbc.co.uk

The government has narrowed the list of potential sites that could be developed as part of its scheme to deliver a wave of "new towns" in England.

The housing department has named seven areas that will be taken forward for further consultation, with the final locations to be confirmed later this year.

Matthew Pennycook the housing minister was on Radio 4 Today at about 0820.

Seven of the twelve locations in the Task Force Report are going forward:

The proposed locations are:

• Tempsford, Bedfordshire — up to 40,000 homes built around a new East West Rail station, linking residents to Cambridge, Oxford, London and Milton Keynes
• Crews Hill and Chase Park, Enfield — up to 21,000 homes helping to meet London’s acute housing need
• Leeds South Bank, West Yorkshire — up to 20,000 homes capitalising on the city’s economic momentum and the government’s £2.1 billion local transport investment
• Manchester Victoria North, Greater Manchester — at least 15,000 homes regenerating the heart of Greater Manchester, with a new Metrolink stop connecting residents to jobs across the city
• Thamesmead, Greenwich — up to 15,000 homes unlocking inaccessible riverside land in London, enabled by the planned Docklands Light Railway extension
• Brabazon and the West Innovation Arc, South Gloucestershire — up to 40,000 homes at the heart of a world-class research and advanced engineering economy
• Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire — building on its history as one of the original new towns, to take forward the ‘renewed town’ vision to expand the city by around 40,000 homes and reinvigorate the centre with a new local transport system, boosting connectivity in the Oxford-Cambridge Growth Corridor

The locations in the report not being taken forward as New Towns are:

The Government also assessed six further New Town locations — Adlington, Heyford Park, Marlcombe (East Devon), Plymouth, South Barking and Wychavon Town — which will not be taken forward as New Towns at this stage but are deemed to be credible development opportunities and may continue to be supported through existing housing programmes.

The next steps include:

• A public consultation on proposed locations and draft planning policy is open until Monday 18 May and will be published shortly.
• Final locations will be confirmed later this year after the consultation and Strategic Environmental Assessment and any further required environmental assessment.

It is interesting that this consultation will be taking place at the same time as local elections.

 

[stevieinselby]

It feels like Tempsford is the only one that is going to be a traditional style new town, with the others all being brownfield redevelopment or extension to existing metropolitan areas.

That's not necessarily a bad thing in terms of either supporting access to public transport for those towns, or keeping the public on side.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well...the Milton Keynes expansion proposed (I think it's mostly the far side of the M1) isn't going to be good for public transport. It's nowhere near any stations, and the bus services around MK are seriously subpar for a city of its size, largely because the layout makes it hard to serve economically because there aren't obvious radial routes. Almost everyone who moves to these places will travel pretty much exclusively by car or taxi (taxis are quite cheap because journeys are quick).

 

[Merle Haggard]

Well...the Milton Keynes expansion proposed (I think it's mostly the far side of the M1) isn't going to be good for public transport. It's nowhere near any stations, and the bus services around MK are seriously subpar for a city of its size, largely because the layout makes it hard to serve economically because there aren't obvious radial routes. Almost everyone who moves to these places will travel pretty much exclusively by car or taxi (taxis are quite cheap because journeys are quick).

I'm confused by this - the M1 is the Eastern boundary of the City of Milton Keynes.

 

[The exile]

I'm confused by this - the M1 is the Eastern boundary of the City of Milton Keynes.

It’ll hardly be the first place where the extent of the built-up area is not congruent with administrative boundaries.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm confused by this - the M1 is the Eastern boundary of the City of Milton Keynes.

MK expansion already includes areas that are not in Milton Keynes Borough (both Aylesbury Vale and Northants), much as some locals (me included) object to this happening without boundary changes because we don't get the Council Tax revenue to spend locally but they will use local services.

This is what MK Council says on it:

1. a new urban neighbourhood in Central Milton Keynes
2. continuing the major expansion to the East of the M1 motorway
3. a developer-led proposal for major expansion North of Milton Keynes.

(2) will at least in part be outside the boundary, and (3) may or may not be depending exactly where it is - towards the west the boundary is quite close to MK such that some of it (Old Stratford) is already outside, whereas towards the east it extends to Olney.

Proposed New Town | Milton Keynes City Council

Summary

www.milton-keynes.gov.uk

What's for certain is that these locations (other than the city centre one) will be highly car dependent.

 

[Merle Haggard]

It’ll hardly be the first place where the extent of the built-up area is not congruent with administrative boundaries.

When the expansion is government-planned one might expect the boundaries to be adjusted first. Happened when towns in Northamptonshire (Daventry, Northampton, Wellingborough) were planned. Development land within that expansion area was purchased compulsorily at agricultural land valuation by the Development Corporations. But this was in the days when town Development Corporations built houses themselves. Good for affordable housing, bad for farmers.
Obviously different with speculative house builders.

MK expansion already includes areas that are not in Milton Keynes Borough (both Aylesbury Vale and Northants), much as some locals (me included) object to this happening without boundary changes because we don't get the Council Tax revenue to spend locally but they will use local services.

That was for a long time a source of contention here regarding Duston - housing estates outside the town but used the (better) town services. When the boundary was moved to enclose Duston residents there complained about their rates being increased!

This is what MK Council says on it:



(2) will at least in part be outside the boundary, and (3) may or may not be depending exactly where it is - towards the west the boundary is quite close to MK such that some of it (Old Stratford) is already outside, whereas towards the east it extends to Olney.

Proposed New Town | Milton Keynes City Council

Summary

www.milton-keynes.gov.uk

What's for certain is that these locations (other than the city centre one) will be highly car dependent.

In the case of new locations East of the M1 I think that the MML would not be far away.

//

In the 1960s/70s expanded towns, great attention was given to attracting employment but that doesn't seem to get much of a mention here. Having a convenient railway station makes it easy to commute to a place of work elsewhere, of course, but that turns the new town into a dormitory one.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In the case of new locations East of the M1 I think that the MML would not be far away.

Nowhere near close enough. People will drive to MKC, or maybe Bedford for Thameslink. The fares would put people off driving to "Market Ketteringborough" but even so those are not nearby. It's an MK expansion close to Newport Pagnell (which is already east of the M1).

It will be highly car dependent. No doubt planning gain will fund buses but as with other such schemes they'll fade away as the money runs out as they will be poorly used.