It is no secret that King Charles’s traditionally designed town of Poundbury in Dorset makes some architects and critics mad with rage. For over 30 years they have been petulantly mocking it, him, the ideas that underpin it and anyone who dares to agree with him. “Fake, heartless, authoritarian”, “mock-British”, and “Brexit-y” are just some of the derogatory statements one is likely to hear about the place.

They will be frothing more this week. The government is announcing 12 sites for its new towns, each for at least 10,000 homes, and have briefed broadcast and print media that the King’s views on architecture and planning will be heavily influencing those towns. “We always look to Poundbury as a really good example,” a Housing Ministry official told a conference this week.

The reason some old architects get so cross is that they haven’t got a leg to stand on and they know it. Thirty-two years after construction first began outside Dorchester, Poundbury is a runaway success whichever way you cut the evidence. More affordable homes, more walking, more shops, more trees, more neighbouring jobs and economic growth, more homes on less land without complaint and higher land values (by 55% which can in turn pay for better amenities) than any comparable development anywhere in the country. In a way there is no comparable development anywhere in the country. At its inception, most architects, councils and housebuilders ridiculed the notion that you could again build a traditional town that people liked to look at, walk through and be in. But now we know: the “experts” were wrong and the King was right.

Just to heap more sawdust into proverbial bowls of architectural muesli, the King’s second urban extension, Nansledan, in economically more challenging Cornwall is also running away with the prizes. I interviewed early residents back in 2018 and they already loved it. “You feel like you live here as an individual, not a number,” one told me. “That feels good.” Since then, the evidence that Nansledan, like Poundbury, is popular, valued and good for the local environment is even clearer.

The Labour government is right to emulate this. It is making plans based on what people like, the kinds of places that make them happy and allow communities to thrive. Most modernist post-war towns were ugly, land-hungry and unviable. On the contrary, no one has ever complained that a town has too many squares or is too beautiful.

It won’t be easy, though. Keir Starmer must watch out for the pitfalls of time, stifling bureaucracy and corner-cutting developers. First, we need pace. We’re millions of homes short. This is blighting living standards and economic growth. The task force’s work has taken too long. We must speed up.

Secondly, officials’ supportive references to Poundbury are very carefully couched and avoid a cast-iron commitment to the creation of attractive buildings and gorgeous streets and squares. Why should only the rich live in beautiful places? The new town task force’s interim report was too technocratic in language and imagery. The look, not just the pattern, of new towns should emulate the King’s and build for the people not the professionals. Steve Reed, the new Housing Secretary, must use his authority to rein in planning and design officials who may feel uncomfortable with these cultural ideas and values.

Finally, some developers will be desperate to degrade the design code and master-planned approach necessary to create a place of Poundbury’s quality. Towns need a mix of shops and offices, a school and, ideally, a church. In the short term these diminish value because they cost more money to build. In the long term they create value. Only landowners and developers with a stewardship-first mindset should apply. This is about town building, not house building. They are not the same.

Nevertheless, two cheers that we are on the right path. Now let’s get cracking.