New Towns: Good Intentions? Managing Urban Environments S.Rackley (PGCE 2004/5)

The idea behind “new towns” Example: Harlow The future for Harlow? – M11 Corridor Your view

The idea behind “new towns”

Example: Harlow

The future for Harlow? – M11 Corridor

Your view

London Sprawl London was sprawling into the surrounding green belt. Many surrounding villages and towns were becoming part of the London conurbation. London infrastructure was under pressure, especially after wartime damage.

London was sprawling into the surrounding green belt.

Many surrounding villages and towns were becoming part of the London conurbation.

London infrastructure was under pressure, especially after wartime damage.

The New Towns Act, 1946 To take London’s overspill population. To maintain the greenbelt by compensating with “green” communities. To help those who lost homes and jobs during the war. Planners told to avoid good agricultural land and to take account of the existing railway lines. Must consult local residents.

To take London’s overspill population.

To maintain the greenbelt by compensating with “green” communities.

To help those who lost homes and jobs during the war.

Planners told to avoid good agricultural land and to take account of the existing railway lines.

Must consult local residents.

Harlow Locals consulted. Only group not to take govt to court. Major landowners accepted change as “inevitability”. May 1947: 6,320 acres with a population of 4,500 “bought” for £26,509.

Locals consulted. Only group not to take govt to court. Major landowners accepted change as “inevitability”.

May 1947: 6,320 acres with a population of 4,500 “bought” for £26,509.

Based on a series of neighbourhoods. Pedestrianised town centre. Two industrial areas on the edge of town. This plan has changed over time due to mass car owner ship. Placed on a main carriageway into London (now the M11).

Based on a series of neighbourhoods.

Pedestrianised town centre.

Two industrial areas on the edge of town.

This plan has changed over time due to mass car owner ship.

Placed on a main carriageway into London (now the M11).

The M11 Corridor Expansion To tackle a “severe shortage of affordable housing”. New developments must be “green”. In M11 corridor, to deliver 300,000 more jobs, 200,000 extra houses over next 15-20 years. Harlow

To tackle a “severe shortage of affordable housing”.

New developments must be “green”.

In M11 corridor, to deliver 300,000 more jobs, 200,000 extra houses over next 15-20 years.

The M11 Corridor Expansion To tackle a “severe shortage of affordable housing”. New developments must be “green”. In M11 corridor, to deliver 300,000 more jobs, 200,000 extra houses over next 15-20 years.

To tackle a “severe shortage of affordable housing”.

New developments must be “green”.

In M11 corridor, to deliver 300,000 more jobs, 200,000 extra houses over next 15-20 years.

The M11 Corridor Expansion To tackle a “severe shortage of affordable housing”. New developments must be “green”. In M11 corridor, to deliver 300,000 more jobs, 200,000 extra houses over next 15-20 years. Some areas are AONB (e.g. Ashford).

To tackle a “severe shortage of affordable housing”.

New developments must be “green”.

In M11 corridor, to deliver 300,000 more jobs, 200,000 extra houses over next 15-20 years.

Some areas are AONB (e.g. Ashford).

News report 2003: Milton Keynes

A modern debate: FOR There is no way of building 75% of housing on brownfield sites. You could only do it by cramming people in at the highest densities we ever developed in the 18th century. We are greatly exaggerating the extent of problem at a time when also 10% of the countryside in the south-east of England is lying idle [set aside by the European Union]. It would take 40-50 generations to cover the countryside in concrete. They [government-appointed consultants] have carefully designated areas that could be developed. They are not large, they are not new cities. They are quite distinct developments. Sir Peter Hall, Professor of Planning at the Bartlett School of Architecture and Planning, University College London

There is no way of building 75% of housing on brownfield sites. You could only do it by cramming people in at the highest densities we ever developed in the 18th century.

We are greatly exaggerating the extent of problem at a time when also 10% of the countryside in the south-east of England is lying idle [set aside by the European Union].

It would take 40-50 generations to cover the countryside in concrete.

They [government-appointed consultants] have carefully designated areas that could be developed.

They are not large, they are not new cities. They are quite distinct developments.

A modern debate: FOR Other views: "This plan is aimed at improving the quality of life for everyone who lives in, works in or visits the region. "It is particularly important for our young people and children as they seek to gain access to jobs, housing, recreation and services in the region."

Other views:

"This plan is aimed at improving the quality of life for everyone who lives in, works in or visits the region.

"It is particularly important for our young people and children as they seek to gain access to jobs, housing, recreation and services in the region."

A modern debate: AGAINST As many of these houses as possible should go on brownfield sites. You can achieve very decent living standards, in very good conditions, living in housing like terraces. Nobody is crowded. We accept we need new houses, but we have a general worry about more and more of the countryside, which is precious to everyone whether they live in the countryside or the town, disappearing under housing estates and concrete. The countryside is precious to all of us and it is going pretty fast. Nick Scone, Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE).

As many of these houses as possible should go on brownfield sites.

You can achieve very decent living standards, in very good conditions, living in housing like terraces. Nobody is crowded.

We accept we need new houses, but we have a general worry about more and more of the countryside, which is precious to everyone whether they live in the countryside or the town, disappearing under housing estates and concrete.

The countryside is precious to all of us and it is going pretty fast.

A modern debate: AGAINST Friends of the Earth: "It will cause enormous damage to wildlife, heritage, local people's quality of life and natural resources across the six counties."

Friends of the Earth:

"It will cause enormous damage to wildlife, heritage, local people's quality of life and natural resources across the six counties."

What do you think? A huge NIMBY issue. This is a serious issue that you will definitely be a part of something similar in the future. Is the plan sustainable? How could you argue “for” and “against”?

A huge NIMBY issue.

This is a serious issue that you will definitely be a part of something similar in the future.

Is the plan sustainable?

How could you argue “for” and “against”?