This was not understood to have been a stated criterion, yet it is an interesting perspective to note. And perhaps even more so bearing in mind the relatively recent introduction of a more proactive and permissive approach to release of land from the Green Belt, including the definition of Grey Belt land, through the December 2024 NPPF.

Of the twelve proposed new towns, nine are entirely free of Green Belt constraint. Two — Adlington in Cheshire and Crews Hill in Enfield — would require some Green Belt release, while a third, Brabazon and the West Innovation Arc, lies close to but not within designated land.

The remainder, including locations such as Leeds South Bank, Manchester Victoria North, Plymouth, Thamesmead in Kent and Worcestershire Parkway, make use of brownfield or underused land within or adjacent to existing settlements.

This distribution appears to reflect a pragmatic approach: one that generally seeks to avoid the political sensitivities commonly associated with Green Belt release, while still meeting the government’s ambition to deliver large-scale housing at pace and in places where infrastructure can support it.

Beyond the Green Belt

For decades, debate around strategies for housing delivery has been dominated by the question of whether or not to build on the Green Belt, including related arguments as to which approach can be considered most sustainable. The taskforce’s approach mirrors what has long been happening in areas such as Greater Cambridge, where successive new settlements have been located just beyond the city’s Green Belt, protecting Cambridge’s status as a compact, historic city while providing much-needed homes. Homes that will facilitate and drive forward the area’s dynamic economic growth.

The same logic underpins many of the new town locations identified by the New Towns Taskforce. Sites such as Worcestershire Parkway, Tempsford (Bedfordshire), and Heyford Park (Oxfordshire) build on existing transport infrastructure and regional economic strengths. The relationship of the latter two locations to the Oxford-Cambridge Arc is also notable in this regard. Others, such as Thamesmead and Leeds South Bank, focus on urban regeneration and densification — challenging traditional notions of what a new town might be.

Lessons from Waterbeach

Boyer has had a long-running involvement with Waterbeach new town over the past two decades — in fact I have been involved since my very first day at Boyer in 2003.

•   The Finance Professional Show 2025: The Video
•   Govt confirms locations for 12 new towns
•   'Joined-up thinking', pro-development LPAs and planning reform key to housebuilding goals

Our experience at Waterbeach demonstrates how growth can be directed to new town locations that achieve the scale and ambition required of a modern new town. Waterbeach new town will eventually provide up to 11,000 homes, supported by employment, community facilities and recreational uses, and crucially a relocated railway station offering direct and sustainable access to Cambridge and London.

The process has not been without challenges — water scarcity and infrastructure funding being two of the most significant — but these are the kinds of issues that can and should be addressed through coordinated national programmes. The key is alignment between agencies and clarity in the delivery mechanisms, to ensure that the planning and consenting stages are as streamlined as possible without sacrificing quality.

The New Towns Taskforce report is clearly mindful of these limitations. In its references to land value capture, infrastructure funding, and the role of centrally led development corporations there is a clearly an awareness of the need for a joined-up and delivery-focused approach. It also acknowledges the need for comprehensive masterplanning and long-term stewardship, ensuring that these new towns do not simply deliver housing numbers but create lasting, successful communities.

Making effective use of land

The argument that new towns destroy the countryside is misplaced. When well planned, they can do the opposite — concentrating growth on locations that can utilise available previously developed land alongside greenfield resources, where it’s development can be most effectively managed, relieving pressure on existing towns and cities, and protecting open land elsewhere from piecemeal, ad-hoc development.

In Adlington and Crews Hill, the Taskforce explicitly identifies the poor quality of existing Green Belt land and the opportunity to use comprehensive planning and infrastructure delivery to achieve better outcomes. This targeted, evidence-based approach is a proactive implementation of the government’s more permissive approach to Green Belt policy, demonstrating the ability to adopt a plan-led approach to its release on a strategic scale.

If we want to preserve the Green Belt while meeting the government’s justified yet ambitious housing delivery targets, we must recognise that it cannot operate as a defensive policy alone. The answer lies in large, well-designed settlements, whether outside, on the edge or within, the Green Belt, that are properly connected, supported by jobs and services, and planned for long-term sustainability.

A legacy of good planning

The challenge is delivery. The new towns programme offers the opportunity to embed the principles of good planning at a national scale: coherent masterplans, sustainable transport, strong local governance and long-term stewardship. If we apply those principles consistently, the next generation of new towns will not be a threat to the Green Belt but its safeguard.