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

[Merle Haggard]

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.

Sorry when I said 'MML' I meant the route not the inter city operator, and was thinking of Flitwick or possibly Harlington. Not sure how practical the road network is for these stations though, from new places East of the M1.

 

[Nottingham59]

Sorry when I said 'MML' I meant the route not the inter city operator, and was thinking of Flitwick or possibly Harlington. Not sure how practical the road network is for these stations though, from new places East of the M1.

When HS2 opens, there will be plenty of space on the WCML for through running from the Marston Vale line (upgraded for EWR) to London.

 

[cle]

When HS2 opens, there will be plenty of space on the WCML for through running from the Marston Vale line (upgraded for EWR) to London.

Those platforms will probably be 4 cars, maybe 5 tops - services out of Euston should be 8-12 car lengths (i know it's 10 w 730s) - so would we so splitting?

Is the demand and population there? Stewartby would be the bigger one - for Universal etc - and much closer to Bedford, doesn't seem that viable.

 

[Magdalia]

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.

The New Towns Taskforce report said this about Milton Keynes:

The city has an entrepreneurial business identity, as a net importer of workers, continuing to rapidly expand itself with growing finance, digital and technology sectors. This is encapsulated in recent years by its identity as a city at the forefront of growth in artificial intelligence, autonomous vehicles and smart city technologies. In addition, Milton Keynes’ growth will benefit from access to higher education institutions such as the Open University (which has a physical campus in Milton Keynes) and Cranfield University, and the ambition for in-person undergraduate education in the city centre. This strong economic base could help to sustain significant job growth for the thousands of new residents expected to move to the new town, with less reliance on commuters coming in.

Development at Milton Keynes is about local employment not commuting to London.

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.

The Taskforce report also said this:

Delivery of a Mass Rapid Transit system would not only discourage car dependency and connect residents to key existing employment, commercial, and cultural spaces, but it could unlock other neighbouring sites for large-scale development that would otherwise be unviable or unappealing to the private sector. Through transport improvements, government support would facilitate a joined-up approach to city centre densification and increase the diversity in the housing market, alongside public realm improvements that would make the city centre an even more desirable place to live.

When the expansion is government-planned one might expect the boundaries to be adjusted first.

This is an aspect that will hopefully be addressed as part of the forthcoming consultation, and it applies to Tempsford too. It would likely be addressed by a Principal Area Boundary Review conducted by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England see here:

Changing external boundaries of councils

Information on Principal Area Boundary Reviews carried out by LGBCE

www.lgbce.org.uk

What a Principal Area Boundary Review does​

A Principal Area Boundary Review changes the boundary between two district, London borough or county councils. They are generally minor, for example when a new area of housing is built across a boundary. They can also involve the merger of two authorities.

How a Principal Area Boundary Review comes about​

There are three ways a Principal Area Boundary Review can come about:

• A request from all councils affected by a proposed boundary change
• A request from central government
• A decision by our Commissioners

 

[Nottingham59]

Those platforms will probably be 4 cars, maybe 5 tops

That's up to EWR. They've only just decided what stations to have on that section.

- services out of Euston should be 8-12 car lengths (i know it's 10 w 730s) - so would we so splitting?

When HS2 takes all the long distance traffic out of Euston, the WCML fasts will have a more regular stopping pattern so could handle more trains per hour than today, and so the slows will be more lightly loaded.

Around half the passengers leaving Euston today are going beyond Rugby, so the southern WCML will carry half the passengers. It's not obvious they will need 12-car trains.

Is the demand and population there? Stewartby would be the bigger one - for Universal etc - and much closer to Bedford, doesn't seem that viable.

That depends on how many houses they build East of the M1. Labour need 1.5 million new homes to meet their election pledge. Bung 250,000 of them in and around Ridgmont with 4tph direct service to London and Bob's your uncle.

 

[Merle Haggard]

snip

Around half the passengers leaving Euston today are going beyond Rugby, so the southern WCML will carry half the passengers. It's not obvious they will need 12-car trains.

snip

Halving the number of passengers South of Rugby doesn't mean that all trains will only be half full.

At present., peaktime LNw trains between Euston and Birmingham are 12 cars South off Northampton and 8 cars North. The rest of the day they are all 8 or 10 cars.

One of the reasons for them being busy is, apart from the intermediate stations serving large towns and cities, London - Birmingham through passengers using this service. They already have the choice of a faster but more expensive service - Avanti - but chose LNw on price. Will the addition of what's likely to be an even more expensive service, HS2, reduce this demand? I don't see why. And of course the traffic levels from the large towns and city Rugby & South won't be affected by HS2.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Sorry when I said 'MML' I meant the route not the inter city operator, and was thinking of Flitwick or possibly Harlington. Not sure how practical the road network is for these stations though, from new places East of the M1.

That's the wrong end of MK. The area being developed is to the north east, near Newport Pagnell and nowhere near Flitwick. Some may indeed drive there because of Thameslink going nearer their destination on a direct train rather than requiring the Tube, but it's not like the Glebe Farm area near J13 where that may be time-advantageous, and it's still car dependent to get to the station. It's probably analogous to (though for different reasons) when I sometimes drive to Aylesbury Vale Parkway.

By the way Wixams will potentially be quite attractive for that traffic as it's very near the A421. But again all of it will be by car. Almost no commuters from MK reach the station by public transport; it's car, walk or bike. Most bus routes don't even start early enough, though some do.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Mar 2026 ==

Development at Milton Keynes is about local employment not commuting to London.

That is the 1970s New Town sham that led to nonsense like Skelmersdale never getting a station and MKC not being part of the original plan. It's in practice totally untrue. Expanding MK will increase employment on offer, but it's as likely to be taken by someone commuting in (often by car) with people living in MK commuting elsewhere.

If they are still parroting that line, then that is not at all reassuring and is a recipe for a highly car-dependent expansion area.

 

[The exile]

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.

Generally conspicuous by its lack of lasting success.

 

[Magdalia]

That is the 1970s New Town sham that led to nonsense like Skelmersdale never getting a station and MKC not being part of the original plan. It's in practice totally untrue. Expanding MK will increase employment on offer, but it's as likely to be taken by someone commuting in (often by car) with people living in MK commuting elsewhere.

That's a reflection of economic history not economic future.

Local employment would have been badly hit by the demise of manufacturing in the early 1980s. Milton Keynes was able to benefit by London commuters moving in when financial services boomed.

However, when local employment started growing again, it was very difficult for workers to move in locally because the London commuters had the houses and weren't moving.

The only quick way out of that is to build new houses, which will be mostly occupied by people working locally who don't have to wait for an existing occupier to sell. The new houses are less likely to be taken by London commuters because it is local employment that is growing now, while London commuting isn't.

 

[Magdalia]

I have now found the consultation on the New Towns draft programme which is here:

New Towns Draft Programme

We are seeking views on the draft New Towns Programme, preferred locations and the government’s proposed offer to potential new towns locations.

www.gov.uk

Summary​

We are seeking views on the draft New Towns Programme, preferred locations and the government’s proposed offer to potential new towns locations.

This consultation closes at
11:59pm on 19 May 2026

There is a lot of additional information in the annexes. In particular table 2 in annex C has the long list of submitted sites and why they were rejected.

Annex C: Locations Methodology - New Towns Draft Programme

www.gov.uk

Open consultation

Annex C: Locations Methodology - New Towns Draft Programme​

 

[Bletchleyite]

Interestingly though it doesn't list Milton Keynes as meeting the objectives but it has been included in the end.

 

[Technologist]

I have now found the consultation on the New Towns draft programme which is here:

New Towns Draft Programme

We are seeking views on the draft New Towns Programme, preferred locations and the government’s proposed offer to potential new towns locations.

www.gov.uk

There is a lot of additional information in the annexes. In particular table 2 in annex C has the long list of submitted sites and why they were rejected.

Annex C: Locations Methodology - New Towns Draft Programme

www.gov.uk

The first one on the list typifies why the UK civil service and processes suck:

Location	Objective(s) not met	Sub-criteria on which the location was assessed as not meeting this objective	Rationale
Albion Forest City	Objective 4 – Deliverability	Have identified a robust funding, leadership, and governance structure.	Large scale proposal of 400,000 homes submitted by a campaign group. There is no clear route to delivery, with no evidence of local political or landowner support, in addition to no developer interest to date.

A VC type process would identify that this lot actually have ambition and the outcome would be, "we are going to fund you a small amount to get the political support or we are going to evaluate if there is another way we can do this with powers at a different tier of government". That criteria effectively means that you are limited to proposals that have come out of the existing not fit for purpose system.

Ashwell and Morden Rail Station

Objective 4 – Deliverability

Be able to deliver the planned number of homes without unreasonable spatial or other constraints. Enable adequate infrastructure provision.

This proposal is within the Cambridge water resource zone, an area that experiences significant water scarcity and relies on rare and protected chalk aquifers. These conditions present a major constraint on the ability to provide the infrastructure required to support development at this location.

Stupid, this constraint needs to be blown out of the water and could be via desalination, again a rigid process, this is far from the only area dismissed on this basis

A fair number of other ones have been stopped on the basis of "there isn't plans for a railway line", which should really be re-written, "if we build these the business case for a railway line is greatly eased and we could build said line using a value uplift from these houses".

 

[HSTEd]

Constraining urban development for lack of water is rather silly - desalination has become surprisingly cheap in recent decades. At least if you operate the plant rather than just keeping it in "reserve" like Thames Water - with no capability to ever actually start it.

 

[The Ham]

Constraining urban development for lack of water is rather silly - desalination has become surprisingly cheap in recent decades. At least if you operate the plant rather than just keeping it in "reserve" like Thames Water - with no capability to ever actually start it.

Whilst i understand what you're saying Ashwell lies between Luton and Cambridge, as such isn't so that close to any other sources of water, as such other locations would be the ones being given the desalinisied water to ease supply for the development to happen.

Politically that's not going to be helpful as it would potentially make NIMBY's of people a long way from the development.

Add an example, it would certainly make for an interesting public enquiry when one of the groups objecting lives 100 miles away - and as such could potentially set a difficult planning precedent. Government's don't typically like seeing new precedents, as that can cause all sorts of unintended consequences with delivering policy.

 

[Snow1964]

Constraining urban development for lack of water is rather silly - desalination has become surprisingly cheap in recent decades. At least if you operate the plant rather than just keeping it in "reserve" like Thames Water - with no capability to ever actually start it.

And of course there are reservoirs like Kielder or Glen Finglas etc (that were added in case level of other reservoirs dropped too far) that have never got low. It's more a case of water industry has never spent money building a grid of bulk pipes from wetter parts of the country.

Also in last 40 years some water companies have not bothered to build additional reservoirs in areas that prone to shortages. Meanwhile other parts of the country haven't had seasonal shortages or hosepipe bans for decades.

 

[Technologist]

Whilst i understand what you're saying Ashwell lies between Luton and Cambridge, as such isn't so that close to any other sources of water, as such other locations would be the ones being given the desalinisied water to ease supply for the development to happen.

Politically that's not going to be helpful as it would potentially make NIMBY's of people a long way from the development.

Add an example, it would certainly make for an interesting public enquiry when one of the groups objecting lives 100 miles away - and as such could potentially set a difficult planning precedent. Government's don't typically like seeing new precedents, as that can cause all sorts of unintended consequences with delivering policy.

I did some prelim scaling on this site a few months back, a pipe that could supply a million people would be about 1-1.5m in diameter so relatively trivial to bury and/or conceal it above ground. The cost of desalination when done at scale is pretty low compared to the current cost of water bills.

The government is trying to do reform around environmental review to reduce the cost and disruption of judicial reviews and also to insert a level of proportionality into the system so that environmental harms can be delt with away from the actual project itself.

We do need to go further potentially to a system whereby we only really allow things to be stopped due to significant damage to irreplaceable environments and where we adopt a fix things later mind set rather than hold up massive projects at massive costs over trivial concerns.

 

[The Ham]

I did some prelim scaling on this site a few months back, a pipe that could supply a million people would be about 1-1.5m in diameter so relatively trivial to bury and/or conceal it above ground. The cost of desalination when done at scale is pretty low compared to the current cost of water bills.

The government is trying to do reform around environmental review to reduce the cost and disruption of judicial reviews and also to insert a level of proportionality into the system so that environmental harms can be delt with away from the actual project itself.

We do need to go further potentially to a system whereby we only really allow things to be stopped due to significant damage to irreplaceable environments and where we adopt a fix things later mind set rather than hold up massive projects at massive costs over trivial concerns.

1m diameter water supply pipes wouldn't fit within normal highway widths (unless a duel carriageway, and then you don't really want it under there), so that's likely a case for a dedicated route.

That's not an issue of you're going short distances, however Ashwell is some 45 miles from the nearest coastline.

In that context, the costs to deliver to that site would be an issue.

As I said, if (rather than serving the site directly) you're diverting other people's water to there and giving them treated sea water, then that's going to come at some significant political cost.

Therefore it's not unreasonable that for that specific site to have been ruled out on that basis.

That's not to say that another site would also be reasonable to rule out due to the need to supply it with water from a desalination plant. Just not one that distance from the coast.

 

[bspahh]

Ashwell and Morden is tricky politically because the station is in Cambridgeshire but Ashwell is in Hertfordshire.

The BBC reports that an underground cable for about a mile between a solar farm in Anchor Lane Farm, Newnham Drove Burwell, Cambridge and Burwell substation "contributed to the costs of building the solar farm rising from £24.4m to £34.1m."

That is going across flat fields. I don't know that running an underground pipe from the coast to Ashwell will be cheap. You also have to deal with the sewage.

 

[The exile]

1m diameter water supply pipes wouldn't fit within normal highway widths (unless a duel carriageway, and then you don't really want it under there), so that's likely a case for a dedicated route.

That's not an issue of you're going short distances, however Ashwell is some 45 miles from the nearest coastline.

In that context, the costs to deliver to that site would be an issue.

As I said, if (rather than serving the site directly) you're diverting other people's water to there and giving them treated sea water, then that's going to come at some significant political cost.

Therefore it's not unreasonable that for that specific site to have been ruled out on that basis.

That's not to say that another site would also be reasonable to rule out due to the need to supply it with water from a desalination plant. Just not one that distance from the coast.

Of course, you wouldn’t have to supply the water to the new town direct from the desalination plant. That water could go somewhere else, enabling the existing supply to be tapped by the new town without detriment.

 

[The Ham]

Of course, you wouldn’t have to supply the water to the new town direct from the desalination plant. That water could go somewhere else, enabling the existing supply to be tapped by the new town without detriment.

Indeed, however that's going to have a political costs (and potentially planning implications).

It's one thing to say "OK, city X some of your water is going to be from the sea" it's quite another to finish that sentence with "...so the water you were getting is going to a new town".

 

[The exile]

Indeed, however that's going to have a political costs (and potentially planning implications).

It's one thing to say "OK, city X some of your water is going to be from the sea" it's quite another to finish that sentence with "...so the water you were getting is going to a new town".

The irony being what the source of some large cities’ water is now. And In not talking about under investment in treatment works…

 

[Snow1964]

Not a completely new town, but large expansion of Frome just approved by Secretary of State.

Frome station is currently just one (shortish) platform on a single track

Details​

Decision letter and Inspector’s Report for a called-in application for:

• the erection of up to 1,700 dwellings (Use Class C3)
• two care homes (Use Class C3)
• 6.9 hectares of employment land (Use Classes E, B2 and B8)
• a mixed use local centre for primary school (Use Class F1)
• cafes/restaurant and convenience store (Use Class E) and other supporting social and physical infrastructure (Use Classes F1, F2 and E)
• provision of greenspace and other supporting ancillary works

All matters (Access (within the site), Layout, Scale, Appearance, Landscaping) reserved except for 4 new vehicular site access points from the existing highway.
Published 2 April 2026

Called-in decision: land south of Frome bounded by Marston Road, B3092/railway line and A361 (Frome Bypass) and including land to the south of A361 (ref: 3360037 - 2 April 2026)

Decision letter and Inspector’s Report for a called-in application.

www.gov.uk

 

[Magdalia]

There is a lot of misunderstanding in this discussion on Ashwell and Morden.

The station is on the Chilterns which is a chalk escarpment. This means that its water supply is from local boreholes into the chalk aquifer below, not from a reservoir. This applies all the way along the Chilterns, including the Cambridge area.

Those boreholes were drilled by small local companies and the legacy of that survives to this day. At privatisation the water at Ashwell and Morden was provided by Lee Valley Water Company, which is now part of Affinity Water. Cambridge had its own water company, which is now part of South Staffordshire Water Company. There is no existing network of water mains, like those operated by the big water companies, because the water comes out of the ground from under where people live, not from a reservoir far away.

This system has worked well for hundreds of years, but there is severe water stress now because of two developments, leading to over abstraction of the chalk aquifers in recent years. One is population growth: there was enough water in the aquifer to supply a city of 100k people, but Cambridge is now 150k and still growing. The surrounding areas are growing rapidly too. The other is climate change: summers are hotter and drier which reduces water supply into the aquifers. Hot dry summers also result in agriculture abstracting more water for irrigation. Agricultural water use is very significant: 10% of all water use in the East of England is agriculture, the next highest region is at 3%.

As well as the economic implications, over abstraction from the aquifers has severe environmental implications too. At the edge of the chalk the water comes out of the aquifers in springs, which feed almost all of the tributaries of the River Cam. These chalk streams are a globally rare habitat, there are only just over 200 of them and more than 20 are in Cambridgeshire, about 10% of the global total. Maintaining water flow in the chalk streams is critical for the rare species that live there, and it also matters for the global perception of Cambridge because the River Cam has to have enough water for punting. The springs at Ashwell are the source of the River Rhee, one of the biggest contributors to water flow in the River Cam at Cambridge.

It has taken a while to get governments to realise that water scarcity is the most important constraint on population and economic growth in Cambridge, but now things are happening. There will be a new pipeline from Grafham Water, near Huntingdon, and a new pipeline from Lincolnshire. The planning process for the Reservoir in the Fens is proceeding on a similar timetable to East West Rail. Although only indirectly, the Grand Union Canal Transfer will help too.

Like all big infrastructure projects, they take time to design and build, the Cambridge area is going to continue to be water stressed for at least 10 more years. That's why the priority now is Tempsford. And even when all that new water infrastructure is done, it isn't going to be delivering more water to Ashwell and Morden. The best Ashwell and Morden can hope for is being able to do more abstraction from the chalk aquifer because Cambridge is doing less.

But desalination won't be happening. If it was a magic solution then it would be happening now, instead of pipelines from Grafham and Lincolnshire. Saline water is (a) at sea level and (b) at the seaside. Ashwell and Morden are neither, the station is about 90m above sea level and 50 miles from the seaside. Desalination is also energy intensive, while there are sources of rainwater that can be piped and pumped over similar distances, it won't be competitive.

Ashwell and Morden is tricky politically because the station is in Cambridgeshire but Ashwell is in Hertfordshire.

Ashwell and Morden station is in Odsey. Although Ashwell is in Hertfordshire, Guilden Morden, Steeple Morden and Odsey are all in Cambridgeshire. Furthermore, Guilden Morden, Steeple Morden and Odsey are likely to be within the area of the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation. It is possible that the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation will look at Ashwell and Morden station again, but being in the Affinity Water area is likely to be the main administrative constraint.

 

[Bald Rick]

There is a lot of misunderstanding in this discussion on Ashwell and Morden.

The station is on the Chilterns which is a chalk escarpment. This means that its water supply is from local boreholes into the chalk aquifer below, not from a reservoir. This applies all the way along the Chilterns, including the Cambridge area.

Those boreholes were drilled by small local companies and the legacy of that survives to this day. At privatisation the water at Ashwell and Morden was provided by Lee Valley Water Company, which is now part of Affinity Water. Cambridge had its own water company, which is now part of South Staffordshire Water Company. There is no existing network of water mains, like those operated by the big water companies, because the water comes out of the ground from under where people live, not from a reservoir far away.

This system has worked well for hundreds of years, but there is severe water stress now because of two developments, leading to over abstraction of the chalk aquifers in recent years. One is population growth: there was enough water in the aquifer to supply a city of 100k people, but Cambridge is now 150k and still growing. The surrounding areas are growing rapidly too. The other is climate change: summers are hotter and drier which reduces water supply into the aquifers. Hot dry summers also result in agriculture abstracting more water for irrigation. Agricultural water use is very significant: 10% of all water use in the East of England is agriculture, the next highest region is at 3%.

As well as the economic implications, over abstraction from the aquifers has severe environmental implications too. At the edge of the chalk the water comes out of the aquifers in springs, which feed almost all of the tributaries of the River Cam. These chalk streams are a globally rare habitat, there are only just over 200 of them and more than 20 are in Cambridgeshire, about 10% of the global total. Maintaining water flow in the chalk streams is critical for the rare species that live there, and it also matters for the global perception of Cambridge because the River Cam has to have enough water for punting. The springs at Ashwell are the source of the River Rhee, one of the biggest contributors to water flow in the River Cam at Cambridge.

It has taken a while to get governments to realise that water scarcity is the most important constraint on population and economic growth in Cambridge, but now things are happening. There will be a new pipeline from Grafham Water, near Huntingdon, and a new pipeline from Lincolnshire. The planning process for the Reservoir in the Fens is proceeding on a similar timetable to East West Rail. Although only indirectly, the Grand Union Canal Transfer will help too.

Like all big infrastructure projects, they take time to design and build, the Cambridge area is going to continue to be water stressed for at least 10 more years. That's why the priority now is Tempsford. And even when all that new water infrastructure is done, it isn't going to be delivering more water to Ashwell and Morden. The best Ashwell and Morden can hope for is being able to do more abstraction from the chalk aquifer because Cambridge is doing less.

But desalination won't be happening. If it was a magic solution then it would be happening now, instead of pipelines from Grafham and Lincolnshire. Saline water is (a) at sea level and (b) at the seaside. Ashwell and Morden are neither, the station is about 90m above sea level and 50 miles from the seaside. Desalination is also energy intensive, while there are sources of rainwater that can be piped and pumped over similar distances, it won't be competitive.


Ashwell and Morden station is in Odsey. Although Ashwell is in Hertfordshire, Guilden Morden, Steeple Morden and Odsey are all in Cambridgeshire. Furthermore, Guilden Morden, Steeple Morden and Odsey are likely to be within the area of the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation. It is possible that the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation will look at Ashwell and Morden station again, but being in the Affinity Water area is likely to be the main administrative constraint.

Very good essay, go to the top of the class!

I am regularly in that part of the world, and the irrigation pipework is often out in the fields there. One small thing that might help a tiny bit is the large solar farm about to go up near Bygrave; some of those fields won’t need irrigating in future. There is, however, a large development planned east of Baldock to the north of the railway (with access from the A505 over the railway.

 

[Magdalia]

Very good essay, go to the top of the class!

Thanks. The last time I wrote something like that was probably in my geography A Level exams. That was half a century ago during the 1976 heatwave and drought, which had a devastating impact on the Ninewells springs, which are near the railway between Cambridge South and Shepreth Branch Junction. At that time the Ninewells springs was a site of special scientific interest (SSSI), but the springs dried out in the drought and wiped out the two rare species that lived there, so it lost SSSI status. The Ninewells springs will be only a short walk away from the new station once it opens.

I am regularly in that part of the world, and the irrigation pipework is often out in the fields there. One small thing that might help a tiny bit is the large solar farm about to go up near Bygrave; some of those fields won’t need irrigating in future. There is, however, a large development planned east of Baldock to the north of the railway (with access from the A505 over the railway.

While the Cambridge area does not have access to good water infrastructure, it is much better placed for the electricity grid. The Cottam-Eaton Socon-Wymondley 400kV power line is close to the ECML, including Tempsford, and there is also the Pelham-Burwell 400kV power line running close by the M11/A11. Generally speaking the Chilterns are not ideal for solar because the scarp slope faces north west, but there are two big schemes near to the Pelham-Burwell power line. Bygrave is near Wymondley and very close to the Cottam-Eaton Socon-Wymondley power line, which follows the A1 more closely than the ECML south of Biggleswade.

Leaves are nature's way of converting sunlight into another energy source but, as you say, solar panels have the advantage of not needing irrigation, and they don't need fertiliser either.

 

[Magdalia]

Not big enough to count as a New Town, but planning permission has been granted for about 5000 new homes in Marston Vale, see here:

Thousands of Bedfordshire homes backed despite 'crushing impact'

Residents complain their area of Bedfordshire is becoming overwhelmed with new development.

www.bbc.co.uk

The go-ahead has been given to build 5,000 homes near several villages, despite concerns about the "crushing impact" of three major projects being built in the area at the same time.
The Marston Valley development in Bedfordshire will be built close to the site of the proposed Universal Studios theme park and the new East West Rail line, following council backing on Thursday.
Villagers said developers of the three schemes had not been talking to each other about things like traffic and impact on the environment.
The firm behind Marston Valley, Central Bedfordshire Council and Universal have been contacted for comment. East West Rail said it was "continuing to work" with the housing developer.
O&H Properties, which is behind the Marston Valley project, said it would create about 4,500 jobs and include schools, a surgery, and retail and community facilities.
The site would cover 1,448 acres (586 hectares) between Brogborough, Lidlington and Marston Moretaine.

 

[The Ham]

Not big enough to count as a New Town, but planning permission has been granted for about 5000 new homes in Marston Vale, see here:

Thousands of Bedfordshire homes backed despite 'crushing impact'

Residents complain their area of Bedfordshire is becoming overwhelmed with new development.

www.bbc.co.uk

The thing is, a lot of people will see 5,000 homes and think thats like 12,000 people and so that's a lot of traffic.

Now whilst 5,000 homes are liken to generate around 3,350 vehicle movements in the morning peak, due to the size of the development a lot of those (including almost all school traffic) will not be leaving the development area.

As such, the overall impact on the roads isn't going to be as bad as feared.

Likewise, if you look at the other sites, the theme park is going to be primarily off peak travel (maybe some workers during the peaks, however some of those could be from the new housing).

The third scheme is a railway, so will actually reduce traffic volumes and where it may generate some they are likely to be short in nature (as you're unlikely to drive further than the distance to the next station)

 

[Magdalia]

Another proposal for new homes near the Sheringham branch:

What do we know about the plan for 1,800 homes in North Walsham?

Developers say the project will bring "notable benefits" but residents voice concerns about traffic.

www.bbc.co.uk

The number of households in a market town could ultimately expand by almost a third of its current size under long-terms plans for an 1,800-home estate.

A primary school, specialist care accommodation and a link road could also be built on the outskirts of North Walsham, Norfolk, which the developers claimed would bring "notable benefits" to the area.

But people living in the town have raised concerns about under-pressure services and increased traffic.

With the planning application, external for the first 437 homes and a new relief road due to be determined by North Norfolk District Council's planning officers by August and then considered by its Planning Committee in the autumn - here is what we know so far.

 

[The Ham]

Something which may make larger schemes a bit more likely is the creation of unitary authorities.

Locally to me the target was (pre 2025) around 450 homes a year, that's now around 800 a year and after the creation of the unitary authority it'll be 2,500 a year.

As such if there's a need for 5 year supply for 12,500 homes, as such it could be tempting to try and have some larger sites given the high number of homes needed.

 

[Magdalia]

The Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government has intervened on planning applications in 9 local authorities, using powers under section 62 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The authorities are:

Epping Forest
Hertsmere
Dacorum
Wychavon
Malvern Hills
Staffordshire Moorlands
Rossendale
South Tyneside

I'm nor sure what this means in practice, but the implications from these BBC reports suggest that applications for large scale house building will be central not local.

Epping Forest District Council can be bypassed by developers

People wanting to build major developments no longer have to apply to Epping Forest District Council.

www.bbc.co.uk

Developers have been told they can "bypass" Epping Forest District Council when seeking permission for major projects.

Epping, in Essex, was one of nine local authorities on Monday to be stripped of its powers to determine large-scale builds.

It followed concerns about the "quality of decision-making" raised by Steve Reed, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government.

Wychavon District Council censured by government over planning hold-ups

Wychavon District Council has been placed in special measures over planning hold-ups.

www.bbc.co.uk

A council is threatening legal action after the government weakened its ability to decide planning applications - calling it "outrageous".

Wychavon District Council has been told developers can now bypass the authority and apply straight to national planning inspectors for a decision on all major housing projects instead.

The sanction was made because too many housing developments refused by councillors over a two-year period in Wychavon were later allowed on appeal, with the government accusing them of "not delivering".

Malvern Hills District Council 'disappointed' over planning axe

A Malvern Hills councillor says it is "disappointing" that "historic data" has been used.

www.bbc.co.uk

A second council in Worcestershire has vowed to fight a government sanction on planning, which it has described as "disappointing".

Planning decisions ordinarily made by Malvern Hills District Council could now by made at national level by the Planning Inspectorate.

It comes after 12% of major planning applications refused by the authority between 2023 and 2025 were later appealed.

The authority accepted this was "slightly above" the accepted limit of 10%, but Councillor David Harrison argued "historic data" was used to make the decision and did "not reflect the significant improvements made" by the planning service in recent years.

Staffordshire council leader 'disappointed' at planning power removal

Staffordshire Moorlands District Council is one of nine councils to be placed in "special measures".

www.bbc.co.uk

A decision by the government to place a council into planning "special measures" has been described as "disappointing" by its leader, but one the authority had been preparing for.

Planning minister, Matthew Pennycook, issued nine designation notices after councils, including Staffordshire Moorlands District Council, failed to meet national standards on the quality of major planning decisions.

Developers will now have the option of bypassing the authority and submitting major applications directly to the Planning Inspectorate.