Local Transport: Planning Developments

Tuesday 24th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Sir Desmond Swayne in the Chair]

09:30

[Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of planning developments on local transport.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. Let me start by making something clear: the local people of Harpenden, Berkhamsted, Tring, Redbourn, Sandridge and the surrounding villages are no nimbys. They are not against housing. They are raising the alarm against top-down national planning that does not serve local housing needs; that leaves local services bursting at the seams without adequate investment, or with investment that is delivered far too late; that fails to deliver the transport infrastructure that communities actually need; and that is eroding precious landscapes, some of which are home to rare chalk streams found nowhere else in the world. Some of those people have joined us in the Public Gallery, and I thank them.

This debate is about the impact of planning on transport infrastructure, and to understand that, we need to see the big picture. The towns and villages in Harpenden and Berkhamsted, including Tring, Redbourn, Wheathampstead, Sandridge and Markyate, are steeped in history. The beautiful Chilterns national landscape can be found around Tring, Berkhamsted and Aldbury. Four rare chalk streams thread through the constituency, alongside the Grand Union canal. Settlements that appear in the Domesday Book can be found, and the old Watling Street runs through the centre of Redbourn. There is also Berkhamsted castle, where the English throne was surrendered to William the Conqueror.

But there are also towns in the constituency that were originally designed for horse-drawn traffic and are now gridlocked with commuter cars. The M1 cuts right through the middle of the constituency, and every time there is an accident, it causes further gridlock on country lanes. The capacity of Luton airport, which is just seven miles away, is nearly doubling, going from 19 million to 32 million passengers a year. That will add roughly a million passengers per month, many of whom will travel on the same routes as local people.

On Thameslink and London Northwestern services, rammed trains are cancelled almost daily—indeed, a group from the Probus club in Harpenden arrived after their train was cancelled today—and bus services have been decimated. That is before we even talk about the impossibility of finding an NHS dentist, the pressures on GPs and the desperate need for additional school places, particularly for children with special educational needs. These old towns and villages are not built for growth of such scale.

We must, then, look at the Government’s approach to planning. Labour has continued the top-down numbers legacy that the Conservatives left behind and, in some cases, made it significantly worse. From top-down targets to grey-belt land, developers are literally having a field day, using loopholes to get unplanned development through. This matters. Giving developers the green light leaves us with an unco-ordinated approach, and infrastructure and communities are coming last.

The new methodology for calculating housing supply has hit St Albans council particularly hard. Its targets have almost doubled, from 855 to 1,660 homes per year, and the numbers in Dacorum have gone from 1,016 to 1,380 homes per year. Both those increased figures will have to be dealt with in further local plans, because they do not even include the massive housing development that we are seeing now.

The changes have left us facing substantial housing sites, such as the 1,400 homes in the Marshcroft development east of Tring, the 850 homes at South Berkhamsted and the more than 700 proposed homes in north-east Harpenden. The Marshcroft development alone would increase the population of Tring by a potential 40%. As Lucy from Tring says:

“It makes no sense…our roads can’t handle it.”

The town got its market charter over 700 years ago, and it has the roads to match. It is also buttressed against the Chilterns national landscape.

I warned the Government from the outset that their plans for development on grey-belt land would hand the advantage to developers rather than communities, which is exactly what has happened. The unclear definition of the grey belt creates a wide-open door for developers, not for communities. Crucially, by focusing protections on towns, the guidance leaves villages, which often have fewer services and weaker infrastructure, far more vulnerable to unplanned development. In Berkhamsted, developers have used the grey-belt back door to push applications adjacent to allocated sites. For example, the grey-belt back door was used in the Haresfoot farm application to get permission to build on green-belt land.

The situation in Redbourn is even more alarming. The latest proposal is a 1,000-home development that is not in the local plan but claims grey-belt status. If that is combined with other sites, Redbourn faces a pipeline of development that could see its population grow by over 70%. As Jen from Redbourn says:

“I am hugely concerned that there is no local democracy that allows villages to stop disproportionate housing development.”

Catherine from Redbourn is equally clear:

“When it comes to measuring green belt, brown belt and grey belt land, villages should not be measured in the same way as a town. This is green-belt land with rare chalk streams, water vole and flora that you don’t find in Europe—it should be protected.”

Redbourn is precisely the kind of village with less infrastructure that has been left more exposed by grey-belt development. Will the Minister speak with colleagues from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to address the top-down practices that take powers and critical infrastructure away from communities?

Although the previous Conservative administrations left Dacorum and St Albans without adopted local plans, which left our area ripe for speculative development, Liberal Democrat councils in the area have worked hard to finally get local plans to the examination stage, but while the plans remain in inspectors’ hands, the Government give no protection from unplanned development. Despite continuous calls on the Government to help to protect us, we have been left exposed.

All that is before we even consider the wider pressures bearing down on local councils, which leave the looming threat of Government takeover when too many appeals are overturned. Nor have we covered the lack of teeth for neighbourhood plans, or the proposals in the planning legislation to make it easier to build near train stations. All these rules put the power in developers’ hands and take it away from communities—so no wonder developers are popping up across the constituency. Does the Minister agree that tackling unplanned development and giving communities more power is vital when preparing transport infrastructure?

Underlying all this is a structural failure in how infrastructure can be planned. The speculative and unplanned development I have outlined sits entirely outside of planned growth modelling. That means that unplanned sites are assessed site by site, in isolation, and with no cumulative way of seeing what they mean together for the roads, buses, rail, cycling, schools, GPs or dentists that communities need. It is wholly inadequate, fragmented and reactive.

Local plans cannot account for national infrastructure decisions, either. The Luton airport expansion, the Universal Studios theme park, and even a rail freight development, approved by the Government, have taken the place of thousands of potential homes elsewhere, and cannot be accounted for. When councils do secure investment for infrastructure with section 106 money or the community infrastructure levy, the current viability criteria mean they can often get out of building more affordable homes, or limit that investment.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for bringing this topic to the House. We have similar problems back home in Northern Ireland. From listening to her, it seems that whenever a new development goes up, it relies on private cars, because there is no public transport out in the countryside, so the pressure is always on people to provide their own transport, which affects the local roads and infrastructure. It also seems like private developers are not following the rules that require a detailed traffic and transport impact assessment for all major developments. If that has not been done when the rules indicate it should have, should the councils, Government or local bodies not take enforcement action to ensure that what is required actually happens, rather than sitting back and doing nothing?

[Victoria Collins]

I agree with parts of the hon. Member’s intervention. The developers have armies of legal teams and, as I will come on to, the national legislation is open to interpretation when it comes to roads. Councils are essentially left powerless to enforce the legislation, because developers find the loopholes. They have the money and the power to push past.

[Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)]

My hon. Friend is right to point out that developers have armies of lawyers, and one of the most frustrating things for local authorities is when they come back again and again. Even when planning authorities reject an application, developers will take it to appeal, and even if the appeal is rejected, they will wait a short period and then come back again. They only have to win once, which is incredibly frustrating for the communities that face the threat.

[Victoria Collins]

Absolutely. On top of that, councils also warn that when they get section 106 money or funding from the community infrastructure levy, the funding available is not enough for the new roads needed for development. They also warn that if we expect section 106 contributions to deliver all new infrastructure, the burden will often be pushed on to new homeowners, as prices can be pushed up.

What is more, there is no guarantee on the delivery or timing of infrastructure plans, often because major infrastructure depends on external bodies or funding cycles, such as for highways and regional transport, as well as on NHS capital planning cycles or educational funding cycles. The Government must adopt an infrastructure-first approach. How will they empower communities to take a cumulative view of the infrastructure impact of planning? What action are the Government taking to address the train capacity and service issues I have highlighted?

Let us turn to the reality on the ground for transport services, starting with roads. Local people put it best. Fiona from Berkhamsted says:

“The roads are completely overwhelmed by traffic through Berkhamsted.”

Anne captures the absurdity of national planning guidance:

“The biggest issue for Berkhamsted is a one-size-fits-all NPPF”—

national planning policy framework—

“for a valley town where the only place left to build is at the top of valley sides, and ancient narrow streets give little scope for cycle routes—certainly not a joined-up network.”

Having once been a keen cyclist in Berkhamsted, I can confirm that the difficulty of getting around means that my poor bike has been left locked up. Sarah from Berkhamsted asks:

“What’s the point of building new houses if there are no pavements for people to walk or safe roads for cars to use?”

Gill from Harpenden is direct, saying:

“The town has so many pinch points on already narrow roads that are already causing jams.”

As I said, the towns and villages in my constituency are old, and many of the roads were built for horse-drawn traffic. Berkhamsted is a hilly place, but there is not a single mention of topography in the national planning framework. Yet the loose definition of “severe”, in terms of cumulative impact tests for roads and traffic, leaves another door wide open for developers.

If someone cannot get around by car, perhaps they can use the bus. Well, that is a whole other story. Under the Conservatives in Hertfordshire, we saw a 56.5% reduction in bus mileage between 2017 and 2023—the biggest reduction in England. That has left us with inaccessible areas where people need a car to get around. The 307 bus in Redbourn runs to Harpenden station only from 9 am, with the last departure at 2 pm, and on Sundays there is no service at all. There is no direct bus connection to local secondary schools. Catherine from Redbourn says it plainly:

“While you might have had to wait ten minutes in London for a bus, here we have three buses a day to Harpenden—you cannot rely on the buses.”

In Berkhamsted, we worked with local campaigners to bring back the 500 bus every half hour, but the service stops at 7 pm. It is a similar story in Tring. I once tried to get a bus across my constituency, from Wheathampstead to Berkhamsted, but what should have been a 30-minute drive took four hours. The recommended route from Harpenden to Berkhamsted is actually via London and costs £35 one way.

Hannah, a sixth-form student from Harpenden, makes the point well:

“Public transport allows me as a young person to visit friends and do activities outside the House—it gives me independence.”

She adds:

“I have never considered living in Harpenden in the future, because it would be far too expensive to buy a place to live.”

That is a double failure by this Government that needs to be heard. Young people say they cannot afford to stay and cannot get around even if they could.

So what about the train? In the last four weeks, only seven out of 122 daily trains from Harpenden to London ran 100% on time. From Berkhamsted to London, only three out of 78 daily departures ran 100% on time, and from Tring there were also only three. From driver availability issues to Thameslink core infrastructure failures and a bottleneck around Croydon, it seems that things will only get worse as pressures grow around the Thameslink line from Bedford to Brighton. Beyond housing development, I have mentioned the other pressures from the expansion of Luton and Gatwick airports, and the Universal Studios development.

There is a two-track bottleneck through central London, and when it fails, the whole line fails. Govia Thameslink Railway has asked the Government for funding for a back-up system; has that been agreed? What are the Government doing to work with rail operators to prepare for the pressures that are building up on the Thameslink line from Bedford to Brighton?

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

Like in my hon. Friend’s constituency, there are all kinds of speculative developments in Surrey Heath, but one of the greatest challenges we face is the potential relocation of Frimley Park hospital. When I asked about the budget that had been set aside for the creation of new roads, railway stations, road improvements and road-widening schemes, I was told that no money had been set aside and that any costs might come, notionally, from a contingency fund. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is no way to use a contingency fund? If Government bodies cannot get it right, what hope should we have for private developers?

[Victoria Collins]

Quite frankly, I find it shameful. It is no wonder that communities are pushing back on development if they see that the infrastructure is not there, and if they cannot get around and cannot get a GP appointment, yet they see thousands of new homes being built. No wonder public trust has been lost.

I could not cover every application across Harpenden and Berkhamsted, but the story is repeated across our corner of Hertfordshire and, indeed, up and down the country. I thank the thousands of constituents who have contacted me. Thousands have written to me about their concerns—94 alone with comments for this debate—and, as I said, several have joined us in the Public Gallery.

Here is the nugget of the issue: if I could say, hand on heart, that top-down planning would, in 10 years’ time, truly deliver affordable, sustainable housing, and houses that local teenagers like Hannah could afford, if I could look her in the eyes and tell her she is wrong about not being able to afford a home, and if I could say that the infrastructure would be built, that developers would not squeeze out of their commitments and that trains and buses would catch up and be up to scratch, I would be making very different arguments. But I cannot.

[Sarah Gibson (Chippenham) (LD)]

The latest NPPF makes it clear that transport planning and infrastructure should be designed in at the outset, but my rural constituency has seen continuous large-scale development outside towns, from which it takes 25 minutes to walk into a town centre. There are no buses. It is not like London where, after waiting five minutes, a bus turns up; a person can wait two hours and nothing turns up. Does my hon. Friend agree that the NPPF needs to allocate funding, on top of the commitment to make sure that transport is considered at the outset?

[Victoria Collins]

Absolutely; I agree completely.

I come back to the promise that I would like to make to Hannah but cannot. Given that the average house price in Berkhamsted is over £650,000, and in Harpenden is more than £900,000, and given that last year the median new build price across the constituency was £747,500, so-called affordable homes—an average house—in expensive postcodes like ours, priced at 80% of market value, still cost more than half a million pounds. How on earth can we say to local people that they are sacrificing green belt so that their children or grandchildren can afford to buy? Local people know that is not the truth, which is why they are pushing back.

Local people understand the need for housing, but they cannot understand why powers are being taken away from them, top-down targets are pushing expensive homes on to communities that need genuinely affordable housing, and precious landscapes are being sacrificed. They cannot understand why Labour have not learned the lessons from the last Government. Communities will again be left without the transport infrastructure they need, and local people will be forced to move away. I call on the Minister and the Government to hear our calls for infrastructure-first and community-led development. It is the least that our communities deserve.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)]

Order. I suggest a time limit of four minutes to start with.

14:47

[Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I thank the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) for giving me the opportunity to talk about one of my favourite topics—public transport, or the lack thereof.

As other rural MPs in the room will know, improving local transport links is a never-ending discussion, particularly in a constituency such as North West Leicestershire that only has a bus service to rely on. We have no passenger rail at all, so everybody needs to travel by road.

Off the back off 14 years of austerity forced upon us by the coalition and then the previous Conservative Government, we need to consider the context that our community has been growing throughout that time. Alongside the destruction of our public services, libraries, Sure Starts and day services, our public transport was cut by 62%.

Planning developments and local transport are about understanding the population we have, as well as the future population. When talking about planning, we have to consider the impact, particularly in my constituency, of huge shed expansion in the industrial sector.

I speak to local residents in Heather regularly, a village in North West Leicestershire. They are just a stone’s throw away from Ibstock, a developing town. Many have told me that when they first moved to Heather, they did not need to use public transport regularly, but knowing they could get a bus meant they had a service they could rely on. Now, as they are getting older, their needs have changed, but the public transport in Heather is long gone. Demand fluctuates, but we are not evaluating that quickly enough or planning for the long term, so when the demography of a town or an estate changes, we are reliant on the community fighting for themselves to get services in place, rather than bus services reflecting the needs of that changing community.

When we talk about connecting new housing developments to leisure, jobs, education, medical and other services, the context is that we have so many fewer services than we had 15 years ago. Context is important in these transport conversations. Planning for change and growth is at the very core of what we are discussing. In fact, planning a new housing estate feels so much more straightforward when the numbers needed to create a new school or doctor’s surgery are taken into consideration. It might not be easy, but we understand the maths that sits behind it. However, when it comes to public transport, it is much less cohesive. It seems a complete waste that public transport is lagging behind in a much more piecemeal discussion. We are not planning for change; we are responding to it, and that is very frustrating for our local communities.

We had a newish development in my community that already involved the enhancement of a new school and the opportunity to extend the doctor’s surgery. As part of the planning conditions, residents were given a six-month bus pass, but it is of little use: there are no buses, so what is the point? We are not getting true, seamless connection between our new developments and our towns. Our towns need those new communities to survive and thrive. Any building in existing town centres does not create good connectivity and extra footfall. It actually means an impairment to growth. Quite often, the bus network does not serve newer estates that sit just outside our town centres, which means that residents are cut off from the town centre, and the town centre is cut off from them. They simply never visit. Therefore, the opportunity to help our town centres is lost. I was proud to sit on the Bus Services Bill Committee, and the Government’s commitment to get more money to local authorities for public transport is clear. However, the difficult part of that is trying to ensure that the money is actually being best utilised, as we are not planning for change; we are reacting to it.

There needs to be a better link between where people live and where services are required. We are never going to be able to plan for everything, but I would like to hear the Minister’s view on how bus services in the long term can be a vehicle for growth and create clearer community connections.

14:51

[Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) for securing this really important debate.

In my experience, nothing erodes public confidence in the planning system faster than development that is delivered with the promise of appropriate infrastructure that never materialises. People are often accepting and understanding of new homes being built if it is done in a thoughtful and considered way. What they are not willing to accept is development pushing local residents out of catchment areas for schools, it becoming impossible for them to see their GP, their homes starting to flood regularly, and no longer being able to get a seat on the train on the way to work. In my constituency, we face huge amounts of development with an absolutely ridiculous doubling of housing targets, all while London’s target comes down. Unfortunately, I see no signs of adequate investment in our local public transport to accompany this ludicrous target.

As Members will be aware, the Government’s draft revised national planning policy framework is heavily tilted towards encouraging development around stations. I understand the logic to that. If we want to reduce car dependency and create opportunity, we have to build near public transport. To maximise the use of existing infrastructure, we have to build in more urban areas that are already well connected. If we want to protect high-quality green belt, we have to densify close to existing settlements. Those are sensible propositions, but the NPPF is too broad brush and does not discern between those bits of land close to stations that fit with these objectives and those that do not.

Let us take Kingswood station in my constituency, for example. There is high-quality green-belt land nearby, yet the train service is far from ideal, there is no timetabled bus service and there are plentiful other brownfield sites and, indeed, greenfield sites that would be much better to build on first. I recognise the good intentions behind that change, and I support looking at land close to train stations first, but additional parameters are required to act as an appropriate filter to protect villages such as Kingswood. If the planning system is going to prioritise developments near stations above all other considerations, it must also be accompanied by extra investment and funding in transport capacity. If the infrastructure is not there or not credibly planned, the answer should be no. That approach would enable growth at genuinely suitable hubs while protecting small villages.

On Gatwick expansion, I am concerned that Gatwick airport has been given the green light to operate a second runway without sufficient thought being given to what that means for surrounding public transport. Reigate station sits on a busy community artery, yet the Department for Transport has said nothing about the impact that millions of extra passengers heading down to Gatwick will have on the line or the station.

The most transformational improvement for Reigate station would be achieved by extending its platform to allow additional and more efficient services. Back in 2020, a Network Rail scheme proposed the creation of a 12-car turnback platform to allow Thameslink trains to stop at the station and avoid the need for splitting and joining of trains at Redhill. I ask the Government to reconsider that project in the light of Gatwick expansion. Redhill is impacted, too, so I would be grateful if the Minister clarified what plans are in place for these stations and lines to meet the need for additional capacity and more frequent and reliable services. This is also a good opportunity to ensure that the facilities at those stations are fit for the 21st century and fully accessible, so that everyone can use them.

On the topic of accessibility, I would like to raise the plight of Earlswood station. It serves a growing area, and one that could come under even greater pressure if the planning system encourages heavier development around it, yet Earlswood’s infrastructure is already creaking. Things have got so bad that the underpass was recently badly flooded and had to be pumped out. People are literally taking their shoes and socks off to get the train, and those with buggies, older residents and disabled passengers are effectively blocked from travelling. I am pleased to see that Network Rail has now replaced the pumps to help to address the situation, but there is still more to do in the long run.

In closing, if the Government want public support for housing growth, they must improve support for public transport as well. Those two things must go hand in hand.

14:56

[Julia Buckley (Shrewsbury) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I, too, thank the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) for securing today’s debate, which brings together so many of us who have a shared passion for aligning local transport with development.

I can understand why so many colleagues have come here today to raise concerns about future developments and how they see new properties as adding pressure to local transport, but I join my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) in pointing out that many rural communities are already missing vital transport links for our existing residents. In Shropshire, we lost over 65% of our local buses under the last Government. Two out of every three buses were deleted. Imagine what that did to the largest inland county in this country. We now have communities that are isolated, residents who are lonely, and vital services, such as health, shops and community, that are just out of reach for so many.

Like many others here, one of my biggest challenges since becoming an MP has been how to help local transport partners work together to build back our transport infrastructure. I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to the opportunity that comes with new housing developments—not just the opportunity to secure funding and plans for more buses, trains, bus stops and networks, but opportunity that runs in the opposite direction. A couple of colleagues have mentioned the change to planning infrastructure, but when we consider strategic housing developments in our local plans, we need to reconsider the opportunities for maximising housing and development close to existing transport infrastructure.

The Rail Industry Association produced an influential report on this issue last October called “Station Investment Zones: A new model for investment in transport, housing and growth”. The argument from the industry is that well-connected stations already offer economic opportunity as engines of growth and that transport or local government landowners could unlock sites near stations, trams, buses or transport hubs to offer hyper-connected housing as infill.

There is another benefit from that approach—one that I have also heard Ministers mention. By investing in our station quarters, we can lift what can sometimes become forgotten corners of our towns and turn them into more brightly lit, well-used areas, with more footfall, amenities and bustle. Let us bring people back to the community hubs that these areas should always have been. That would also deliver more passengers for rail operators such as Great British Railways and reduce unnecessary car journeys, helping the modal shift that we are all trying to drive forward to reduce congestion and pollution in town centres such as Shrewsbury. I would love to see that type of development near my train station in Shrewsbury. Let us get more shops, cafés, streetlights, ATMs and footfall to complement the services that are already offered there.

I was therefore delighted that the Government amended planning policy in the NPPF to include a presumption in favour of suitable developments within 800 metres of a well-connected station. It is the ultimate example of joined-up Government: cross-departmental policy delivering much-needed housing where we already have transport infrastructure and in turn helping to fund more transport for the areas where housing will need to be increased, which Members have talked about today. On behalf of the people of Shrewsbury, I say to the Minister: thank you very much for bringing forward a sensible and impactful policy that will help all of us in the search for transport alongside housing.

14:59

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) on securing this important debate and on her continued work in this policy area.

In West Dorset, the issue with planning development is not just about how many homes we build, but where we build them and whether they are built with the infrastructure that is needed to support them. As I have said repeatedly, we need the right houses in the right places and at the right price. That means genuinely affordable homes for local people. It means accessible homes, so that older residents can downsize and stay close to the family. It means not building on floodplains—something that recent storms in the area have shown to be serious and costly. It means protecting natural landscapes, such as the one that covers 70% of West Dorset; and it means that, when new homes are approved, the infrastructure that is needed, such as GPs, dentists, schools and, critically, transport, must be delivered.

Having spent many thrilling hours on the Railways Bill Committee, alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), I will not revisit every rail argument, but I do want to be clear that housing growth and rail capacity must be planned together. Local transport must be properly joined up. Local communities must be given a voice; and buses need to connect reliably with train services, so that people in new developments can realistically commute without relying entirely on a car.

When demand increases, supply should increase with it. Ticket prices remain too high, and peak services are often overcrowded, with elderly and disabled passengers standing for long journeys. It is not acceptable, and it will only worsen if housing numbers rise without matched investment. West Dorset is rural and spread out. We have an ageing population. Many residents rely on buses to get to work, school, hospital appointments and shops, but bus services have been cut back dramatically.

From 2010, service frequency in West Dorset fell by 62%. Satisfaction with bus services across Dorset stands at just 48%, despite nearly half of residents living in areas ranked in the top 20% most deprived nationally for access to services. Dorset received £3.8 million through the bus services improvement plan, compared with £11.6 million for Devon. It was one of the lowest settlements in the south-west. It does not reflect our rural geography, the scale of the problem, our older population or our surge in visitor numbers during the summer months.

When new housing developments are approved, especially in rural areas, they should come with guaranteed improvements to local transport. If buses are unreliable or non-existent, people will have no choice but to drive. Properly supported community transport also has a role to play. In places where commercial routes are no longer viable, there should be secure grant funding for community-led services. A hub-and-spoke model linking villages to key towns can be more realistic than trying to restore full commercial routes.

The CB3 service in Beaminster shows what can be achieved when communities work together, but parish and local councils cannot be expected to carry the financial burden alone. We should look seriously at pilots for larger roll-outs of on-demand services. Flexible bus systems can use technology to plan the most efficient routes based on bookings. These services have already worked particularly well for younger people travelling between villages.

If that is to work, the council will need technical support and funding to deliver it properly. On-demand services should be supported where reinstating traditional bus services is not viable, and the Government services should provide new centralised pots for community transport funding that can be bid for to specifically counteract the years of underfunding. The extra money and multi-year funding from central Government is a welcome change, but it is not enough to turn the tide. We need measures targeted to those places that have lost the most before we can start building a more sustainable network; otherwise, we will just normalise failure.

There is also a sequencing problem in planning. I have seen developments where housing has gone ahead but infrastructure has stalled, sometimes because a contractor has gone bust after being awarded the contract, as happened recently in Bridport. That leaves new homes without the transport links, roads and roundabouts that they were promised. It undermines trust in the planning system and fuels opposition to future development.

Transport is central to whether a development works. If we build homes without properly improving buses, trains and roads, we increase congestion, make daily life harder and create understandable resentment. If we want communities to have and agree to new housing developments, we must show that infrastructure will come alongside it, not years later.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)]

I call Chris Bloore.

15:04

[Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)]

Although it is a pleasure to be called, Sir Desmond, I did not intend to give a speech. But I was planning to intervene, so I will quickly say that I recognise the points made by the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins). I come from the generation that has really struggled to buy a home in the community that they are from. Many of my colleagues and friends who have done incredibly well in their lives—they have achieved—are still living with their mums and dads. That is something that cannot continue.

While I recognise the hon. Member’s concerns about development with transport not following, the situation that we have now is simply not sustainable. We have to be brave, both as politicians and local representatives, to ensure that we do not make the perfect the enemy of the good. We have to push things forward for our young people. They have had the same promises—that we will build those affordable houses; that we will make those developments connected to their communities—for 20 years.

I say this as someone who has opposed and supported developments in my constituency: I take the hon. Member’s point that we will never meet the needs on our waiting lists unless we build affordable homes, but we have to actually start putting spades in the ground at some stage. As representatives in this Parliament, we cannot continue seeing the low numbers of houses being built in communities like mine in Redditch for another decade. It puts the life chances of my residents at risk, and means that my friends have to move to nearby conurbations, instead of being able to raise families and live in the constituencies that they want to. I agree with many of the things that the hon. Member said, but I also think that we need to be brave as politicians moving forward.

15:06

[Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I thank the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) for bringing forward this debate.

On paper, Mid Leicestershire is well connected between the M1 and the A46, but the reality for my constituents is a different story. I am not coming at this as a nimby; I am not opposed to development for the sake of it. I recognise the pressing need for housing, particularly for young people to get on the property ladder, and for growth. However, what I cannot accept is endless development without the infrastructure to sustain it. Homes without roads, rail links and other public transport make the lives of my constituents poorer. So while the map may suggest connectivity, the daily experience of my constituents tells a different story.

In Markfield, for example, residents regularly contact me about the Fieldhead roundabout. Many residents face delays of more than an hour when travelling just a few miles to get to work, to hospital appointments, or to simply take their children to school. All of that is happening while further development is being granted, and there appears to be next to no consideration of the long-term and cumulative impacts of developments on connectivity.

In Stanton-under-Barden, residents have effectively been cut off from Coalville and the surrounding villages since last September. Their sole bus service has been cancelled as the direct result of disruption caused by a large development at the entrance to the village. While Leicestershire county council claims that alternatives are available to residents, my casework suggests otherwise. In Ratby, there is a prolonged closure of roads—again, as a result of developments, which have even disrupted the regular delivery of people’s post.

The question is: what can we do to help residents with the ongoing challenges posed by continued development, while ensuring that we have places for the next generation to live? First, I believe that there must be a fundamental re-evaluation of whether section 106 money is being spent as originally intended. We are consistently told that those contributions from developers to local authorities exist to mitigate the impact of new developments on existing residents, to fund roads, schools, transport links and community infrastructure—but does that actually materialise?

In 2024, it was reported that councils are sitting on more than £6 billion of unspent section 106 money. That is £6 billion that was intended to ease the pressure on communities—to improve junctions, support bus services and enhance local amenities. Instead it lies dormant or, worse still, is returned to developers.

[Amanda Hack]

I am a neighbouring constituency MP, and one of the things that has always been a huge frustration is that Leicestershire is in the top ten of held-on-to 106 money. There definitely needs to be a conversation about how we get that 106 money spent—and spent quickly.

[Mr Bedford]

The hon. Lady and I both served on Leicestershire county council together, so we are both well aware of that issue. We have made the case before to ensure that the money is invested in local infrastructure, and will continue to do so.

Secondly, I have seen in Mid Leicestershire the consequences of being a constituency that straddles multiple local planning authorities. Decisions made on the edge of one authority impact the residents who lie on the other side, in the other authority. I tabled two amendments to the Bill that became the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 that were aimed at addressing that issue. Sadly, the Government chose not to adopt those amendments, so I ask the Minister to relook at the issue to ensure that where multiple planning authorities straddle different areas, that is taken into consideration when planning permission is granted.

Finally, we should not support the Whitehall assumption that all roads must lead to London. We need to link big cities in the north, in the midlands, east and west. That is how we will truly level up. Most of us in this House recognise that we do need development, homes and growth, but development without infrastructure is not progress; it is a burden. We need better connectivity in our local areas, the infrastructure for which goes hand in hand with planning reforms. I urge the Government to take on board the many constructive suggestions from today’s debate, so that we have a system that truly recognises the need for infrastructure before and alongside development.

15:10

[Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. I am afraid I have been lured into making some side comments before getting into the meat of my speech. This is in relation to the point about aggregate supply and meeting the housing needs of young people. It is really important that we bring some facts to that debate, and the reality is that from 2013 to 2023 the housing stock in this country expanded more rapidly than our population did. It is not an issue of aggregate supply, and focusing on that will never meet the needs of younger people in this country.

The relationship between new housing and local transport, cuts to the core of why we need to end the developer-led, profit-motivated approach to planning in this nation. Despite warm words in national guidelines, right across the country the relentless reality of most new estates is more traffic, more toxic air pollution and more space given to car parking than to children for play. The reality is inadequate public transport, distant services, non-existent local employment opportunities and more noise, congestion and pollution blighting our lives. Few things shape the basic, day-to-day experience of life in the UK in 2026 more than the disconnect between transport policy on paper and actual development around our towns and villages.

When we came to power, Labour promised change, but this experience will not begin to improve until we address one of the most harmful phrases in national planning policy: the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Few policies are more baleful or more egregiously misnamed. It may be called sustainable development, but in fact it does exactly the reverse of what it says on the tin.

This legacy policy puts power overwhelmingly in the hands of developers, overruling the aspirations of local councils and trampling on the concerns of communities. It is responsible for the proliferation of bolt-on estates on the edge of towns and villages, with no realistic prospect that most people living there will be able to access the services and facilities that we all need in our daily lives, other than by driving—locking in car dependency from the get-go.

The presumption in favour of sustainable development allows the construction of developments designed to exist as commuter dormitories, rather than creating real communities with work, leisure and culture all within walking distance. It is the precise opposite of the idealism of the garden city principles originally put into action in Letchworth. By clearing the way for speculative, unsustainable developments, the presumption currently ensures that much of what is built in this country is defined by what is easy and profitable for developers, rather than what is good for people and planet. Above all, car-dependent developments like these squeeze the space for genuine society. Community connections will always struggle to thrive if the public realm is dominated by parked cars and traffic.

We need to put local authorities back in the driving seat, with the powers to design and deliver developments that genuinely deliver affordable homes in well planned and cohesive communities, with all the opportunities necessary for happy and fulfilling lives. Above all, to ensure that development comes with healthy and positive local transport connections, we must—the Environmental Audit Committee, on which I serve, called for this—amend the definition of “presumption in favour of sustainable development” in the national planning policy framework in order to strengthen the safeguards against environmentally unsustainable, unplanned and speculative development.

15:14

[Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) for her very insightful opening speech.

If the number of homes in an area is doubled but the roads, buses, rail capacity, flood protection and sewerage are not doubled, something has to give. In Siddington, in my constituency, we are being asked to absorb up to 1,100 additional homes on top of the 2,500 already under way nearby, with no credible, guaranteed transport plan to support them. That is not infrastructure-led growth; it is infrastructure playing catch-up, and rural communities are the ones that will pay the price.

In a previous career as a management consultant, I learned through critical path planning that certain things must happen in a specific order to work smoothly; that just does not seem to be happening at the moment. In a perfect world—I know we do not live in one—the land use framework would have come out first so we could see how to allocate our land. I understand that if we add together all the land area commitments in this country, we will need a couple more Waleses to accommodate them all. Clearly, something has gone a little awry.

To pick up on a point already made by a couple of colleagues: will housing targets actually deliver the affordable houses we need, where we need them? I am not at all convinced. As an environmentalist, I am very concerned by measures in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. Are we at risk of trashing our countryside and building houses that are not fit for their designated purpose? Of course, we do not yet have the sewerage infrastructure; as a constituency that lies largely in the Thames Water catchment, this is very much top of my mind.

[Mr Bedford]

Does the hon. Lady agree that the utility sector should be a statutory consultee? In a previous life, I worked for a utility company. One of the frustrations for that company was that it was often asked to provide infrastructure to support massive housing developments, yet there was no requirement for it to be consulted as part of the planning process. Does she agree that is wrong?

[Dr Savage]

I believe we need to challenge the automatic right for developers to connect to the sewerage network. In fact, they must be encouraged to work with public utilities to ensure that capacity is there before they put spades in the ground.

I realise I am slightly digressing from the key issue of transport, which I will come to now. Siddington’s road network consists of narrow rural lanes that were never designed for high traffic volumes. High congestion already exists at peak times, especially around Ashton Road and the routes feeding the A419 and A429 corridors. Some 1,000 homes could mean another 1,500 or even 2,000 vehicles, with a significant increase in daily car movements. If the potholes are bad now, they are only going to get worse—not to mention the impact on carbon emissions and air quality.

Instead, we should be encouraging public transport and active travel, and designing new developments accordingly. I have heard recently from town councils in Cricklade and Fairford of their concerns about these large, bolt-on estates that are a little too far from town centre facilities. People will have to drive, adding to existing congestion and pressure on parking spaces.

Rural bus services are already limited in frequency and coverage. On the 51 route, the loss of the 8 am service and the 4 pm return means that it is just not a viable way to get to work and back. The result is being locked into increased car use. A young constituent of mine, Heather Kent, attends Stagedoor Learning in Cheltenham, but she now faces an 11-hour day with long waits between services or is dependent on her parents to collect her. She first came to my attention as someone who regularly does litter picks in the area; she will now be spending more time trying to get to and from places and less time picking up litter.

Meanwhile, on the 77 bus route from Fairford to Cirencester, there have been service changes and serious reliability concerns. Once somebody gives up on reliable public transport and buys a car, we have lost them; they will then use their car to get everywhere, with all the consequences of that. What we need is not just a short-term promise of viable public transport; we need it to be locked in for the long term—not dependent on developer payments—so people can plan their lives accordingly.

Going forward, as has already been mentioned, the impacts will be not just linear but exponential. We need careful, sensible modelling of what the impact of these new developments will be, and the resulting total vehicle movement. I want to emphasise that I am not opposed to housing. Clearly, we need more affordable housing, but I echo the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo), about having not only developer-led housing for profit but the right kinds of housing in the right places with an in-built sense of community.

Without careful planning, we will face permanent congestion, reduced safety, worsened flooding, a loss of village identity and potentially serious adverse impacts on nature and wellbeing. Planning should shape the future; it should not erode the present. If we allow large-scale developments to proceed without guaranteed transport infrastructure, we will be building not thriving communities but daily frustration, longer commutes, gridlocked lanes and an increased flood risk. Growth done well creates opportunity; growth done badly creates regret and resentment.

15:21

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

The West of England rail line runs from Exeter to London Waterloo via Feniton, Honiton and Axminster. Network Rail describes the line from Exeter to Basingstoke as

“one of the worst-performing single-track sections nationally”.

It is one of the most under-invested lines in England. In this place, it is a cliché to talk about a Cinderella service, but trains serving residents on the West of England line do provide a Cinderella service—in fact, people stood waiting for a South Western Railway carriage to travel from Feniton, Honiton or Axminster may wonder if they are waiting for a pumpkin. According to the Salisbury to Exeter rail user group, the line has examples of everything that the Secretary of State for Transport says is wrong with rail in this country. For example, the section between Salisbury and Yeovil Junction operates at an 88% capacity, well in excess of the 80% threshold needed for resilience.

In May last year, the Minister stated that there were no plans to enhance the West of England line. Yet it is apparent to anyone who travels on it that there is a dire need for improvement. Between August and November last year, the service ground to a painfully slow pace during dry weather because of a so-called soil moisture deficit. During that period, the entire line was served by just one train every two hours, and when journeys were cancelled, passengers were left waiting for upwards of four hours for trains.

The situation is particularly concerning in the light of proposed new housing developments in Devon. Exeter is the fastest-growing city in England by population. Over 1,100 houses are to be built across east Devon in each of the next five years, as demanded by the housing targets imposed on local authorities by the Government in Westminster. In the 2030s, a new town called Marlcombe is projected to be built; it would have 10,000 houses over the long term.

Last November, the Housing Secretary announced that proposed developments within 15 minutes of railway stations could be given a default yes in the interests of promoting house building in so-called travel to work areas. Changes to the national planning policy framework are currently subject to consultation, but they lack restrictive criteria for those railway stations that are not deemed to be well-connected and could open up development in any village or town that has a railway station, apparently without restriction. New housing developments surely cannot be justified in this way when the rail infrastructure is substandard. That is raising significant concerns for residents of communities I represent such as Feniton, Honiton, Axminster and Cullompton.

Thankfully, a vision for the line has been laid out by the Salisbury to Exeter rail user group, with six points agreed by key stakeholders including South Western Railway, Network Rail, Great Western Railway and Devon county council. The plan includes new rolling stock and power sources, signalling and the delivery of double track, and, at the very least, passing loops at Whimple and Tisbury. However, the funding is missing.

The Rail Minister stated on the “Green Signals” podcast that

“connectivity drives growth, jobs and homes”.

He is right, but without investment and improvement the West of England line will not have that connectivity. In the absence of that investment, the line cannot be the basis on which new housing is justified. The message from people I represent is plain: “Infrastructure first, please.”

15:24

[Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) for securing the debate. I have listened with great interest to many of the speeches given today, including from my near neighbours. It has been interesting to hear a run through of their constituencies and I will give a bit of a run through of some of the issues in my constituency as well.

Many Members have spoken to the issues of bolt-on developments and so-called ribbon developments where we get additional speculative developments extending villages and towns beyond their infrastructure capacity. That is true for a village in my constituency called Chalgrove, which is at risk of becoming one of the longest villages in the country. If the developers get their way, it will eventually look a bit more like Chile when we look at it on the map. Developers are seeking to take advantage of the B480 without delivering any infrastructure alongside it. As a councillor, I have fought against developments that seek to do that.

I also want to speak to badly planned development in particular. That is nowhere more true than in Chalgrove, which has an airfield that was sold by the Ministry of Defence back in, I think, 2001 to Homes England. Chalgrove is in the middle of nowhere and I do it no disservice by saying so—it is a lovely village in a rural setting. It has no mass transit system; there is no railway and there is a very limited bus service. It is a car-dependent community and there is no getting away from that; it is purely the geography of where it is.

Yet Chalgrove has been assigned 3,500 new homes in the local plan that was forced through by the former Conservative Government and, indeed, by a Member who no longer sits on the Conservative Benches but sits with Reform UK. Residents are wholly opposed to that, as am I, because it requires massive road building to facilitate it. It requires bypasses at the villages of Chiselhampton, Stadhampton and Cuxham, even though Homes England is trying to row back from that. We will also get bottlenecks at Little Milton as residents try to move from that car-dependent, dormitory town to the M40 and onwards to London, Oxford or beyond for work. We need to move beyond car-dependent communities for the reasons that many, including my hon. Friends, have outlined.

Elsewhere in my constituency, bypasses—so-called edge roads—are still required to facilitate developments, and I have been supportive of the Watlington relief road. That is an example of a community that has embraced development. It actively sought the development of new homes that it did not have to take on in the local plan. It put them into its neighbourhood plan so that it could get a relief road, because the historical nature of the town means it has a choke point that was previously used only by horse and cart, but is now used as the main through route to the M40.

It has therefore been incredibly frustrating to see homes being built ahead of the relief road, to the point where we are now seeing intense difficulties navigating the town. Even where we have communities that embrace development, we are betraying them by not delivering the infrastructure alongside it. I want to see more investment in infrastructure for those communities that get new developments.

15:29

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship again, Sir Desmond. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) on securing such an important debate; she has made a number of salient points that I wholeheartedly agree with, in particular about the impact of losing local voices in the planning process.

As Liberal Democrats, we believe the Government should be doing things with people, not to them. Their planning reforms are another example of where we could gain the confidence of far more people in planning decisions if they were properly involved and consulted. I was pleased to hear the excellent speeches of my hon. Friends: my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) talked about housing growth pressure; my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) reminded us of the importance of doing the right things in the right order; my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) spoke about the importance of money; and my hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo) spoke about getting the balance right between different types of transport.

Most reasonable people would think that decisions about transport and planning should go hand in hand. Planning decisions lead to transport requirements and transport provision will inform planning decisions. However, like so much of the creaking and archaic machinery of the state, the predetermined silos for those two areas sit separately and often work in conflict rather than in harmony. What people want is for decisions to be made with a focus on them. How do we best plan infrastructure and transport to support people?

Even within transport, there are silos within silos. The different modes of transport and transport integration are not considered together, despite how interconnected they are. Those levels of bureaucracy and failure to deliver a working transport system are not what people want. They just want decisions to be made that help to get them where they want to go, when they want to go. If that is really beyond the ability of the state, we should all despair. Talking about alterations to the machinery of government might sound like wonkery, but in cases such as these it is clear to see where making the state work better would make our constituents’ lives better, too.

Rarely am I desperate to give credit to the planning system, but it does succeed in taking a more holistic view of transport into consideration when making decisions. It can assess the needs and uses of a wide range of transport modes. It understands the interplay between housing, employment and transport, and it thinks about where people are going and when, and what steps might need to be necessary to improve their experiences.

However, the planning system has little real power to actually make changes. The closest it can get is by creating a sizeable enough housing demand and hoping that the transport decision makers notice and deliver the necessary improvements. That means that many people end up in disconnected new estates or working in employment areas without any real accessibility other than by private car. There is a fundamental lack of an overarching strategy for too many of these decisions— and that could make the experience of people living in newly built areas and those seeing change in the ones they already live in immensely better.

For Norfolk, I believe a key way for us to secure that strategy was through devolution, which I have been trying to deliver since my first county council campaign kicked off nearly a decade ago. Devolving transport powers to local areas means that decisions on wide-ranging strategy and aims can be made closer to the people they impact, with real local buy-in. The promise of seeing those powers in Norfolk made me feel that we might finally crack the rural transport problems that have held our area back for too long. Instead, we have seen a double whammy of let-downs on that front in recent months.

First, the Labour Government pushed our mayoral election down the line to 2028, meaning more years without the power to deliver the change that my residents need now. Secondly, in the past week we have seen the Conservative leader of Norfolk county council launch a titanic tantrum over local elections and refuse to work with the Government on any further devolution discussions. Because she felt jilted by the Government, she has abandoned the opportunity for progress and money to pursue a personal vendetta against the Secretary of State, calling him things that I frankly cannot repeat in this Chamber. I have strong disagreements with the devolution process, but I want to put Norfolk first, not the ego of someone who is supposed to be a local leader. She tried to throw Norfolk under the bus—although, without any transport powers, it is unlikely that one would show up.

To go back to the matter in hand, there are improvements that we Liberal Democrats want to deliver and could deliver at local and national levels. We want to see more buses with more people on them, and these need to work out alongside the planning of new developments. For young students and workers, we have proposed a bus fare discount, enabling easier access to work and education or just getting to socialise with friends. We want to expand walking and cycling access with a boost to budgets and a drive to create more active travel routes that get people out of cars and on to paths where possible. On our railways, we want to make the commuter experience better, back passengers with a new passenger’s charter and give people the confidence to move their journeys on to public transport.

Now that the local elections are back on in Norfolk, I am sure many of my Liberal Democrat colleagues will find themselves at some point over the next few weeks lost inside a rabbit-warren estate with a dodgy phone signal and a bunch of undelivered leaflets, asking themselves the key question: was this place designed for people to live or for cars to drive? We have to make transport and planning work more cohesively, because they deliver tangible benefits to our constituents’ lives and could do so quickly. The Government can and must do more to restore faith in the planning and transport systems so that all our residents reap the benefits.

15:34

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

Thank you, Sir Desmond, for agreeing to chair this interesting debate. I also thank the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) for securing this debate today. Any Member of Parliament with a pulse who has served more than a day here will realise how interconnected is the relationship between planning decisions, housing developments in their constituencies and the provision of local infrastructure to support them. I bet the biggest complaint every single one of us will have received over our period in office is, “We are not against planning, but we need the infrastructure in first and the development later, because we need to look after not just the coming population, but the existing one.” Trying to balance the needs of future and existing populations is right at the heart of local democratic representation.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

Epsom and Ewell has the highest accommodation costs in England. That pressure is being addressed by building new housing, but the challenge is that in one development in my constituency, residents had to wait nearly a decade after moving into their new homes to get a bus route and new school, with additional pressure on train services. Although housing and some development is essential, does the hon. Member agree it should reflect community needs and the capacity of local transport services?

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am grateful for that intervention.

In her speech, the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted said that many of the services from Berkhamsted to London were not on time, so I took the opportunity to look up the frequency of those services. I gently point out that people in my constituency would give their eye teeth for a service every 10 minutes and that level of connectivity—they only have to wait a couple more minutes and there is another train, and another one after that. However, I do not diminish her fundamental argument about transport infrastructure, the subject of the debate—you have rightly been generous, Sir Desmond, in letting us stretch that to other local infrastructure—if new populations are to be accepted by existing populations, infrastructure needs to expand at the same pace, and ideally in advance of the growth in population.

We have heard a number of good speeches; I commend the hon. Lady’s speech, but I will also highlight the two Conservative contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) made the important point that where we have an increased population, it is not only the roads, but the railway infrastructure, that suffer and need to be expanded. In her case, that is an extended station at Reigate. Her constituency also suffers a double whammy, with travel growth due to the nearby expansion of Gatwick airport.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) made a number of good points. With multiple developments on local transport infrastructure, each one is identified and dealt with in isolation, not considering the cumulative impacts. The argument goes that the road can stand another 500 or 1,200 units, and that might be the case but, when there are 20 cumulative applications, the infrastructure creaks. He made another good point, of which I have personal experience, about constituencies with multiple local authorities, where one local authority can make a planning decision that adversely affects residents in the authority next door.

In my case, the Liberal Democrat North Norfolk district council is planning a large increased settlement to North Walsham, totally ignoring the huge impact of traffic going through nearby Coltishall, where everyone is funnelled over a single bridge across the river. There is an ongoing fight, with one district council ignoring the needs of another. Surely we can do better than that.

The Government have also taken steps to alter housing targets, moving targets around the country. Those steps have not always been accompanied by consideration of the impact on local transport. A prominent example is the county of Dorset, where a significantly increased housing target is being imposed—top-down, as the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted said—yet one of the first acts of the Labour Government was to axe the improvements to the A303, the road that links Dorset to London and the south-east.

Currently, an eight-mile journey that should take only 10 minutes is regularly taking over an hour. The A303 is also the vital connection between the south-east and the south-west—areas where the Government’s targets will result in a significant increase in development, with more people, more cars and more congestion. That example demonstrates the disconnect between what local areas need when it comes to transport and what the Government are willing to deliver.

Even when plans have been developed and funding has been secured for key transport schemes, they are often hampered, and sometimes even cancelled due to—in my view—unreasonable and burdensome over-regulation. I need only look at my own constituency and the scheme for the Norwich western link road. The delivery of that scheme is vital to the residents of Norfolk and to the local economy. Traffic congestion, delays, and queues on small rural roads and through communities in my constituency have long been blighting the area to the west of Norwich. Detailed plans were drawn up for a new 3.9-mile dual carriageway, the last section needed to complete the orbital dual carriageway route around the city of Norwich.

Plans were developed over seven years with local consultation and £230 million in funding—achieved by me. It was classified as a high-value scheme by the Department for Transport’s criteria. Relying on that planned road, many thousands of new houses had been allocated to land north-east of Norwich. Natural England was consulted throughout that seven-year period; in fact, it was very much part of the team. Then, one week before the final planning application was made, and without any notice to the planning team, Natural England changed its approach to a nearby colony of bats and withdrew its support—not just for that scheme, but for any mitigation approach. That left £50 million of development costs, and local residents and businesses across Norfolk let down. They were not consulted and their views were not taken into consideration.

Despite the Prime Minister talking a good game when it came to organisations unreasonably blocking crucial infrastructure schemes for similar reasons—I pray in aid the bat tunnel—the Government did not step in to help. I am interested to hear from the Minister how the Government are planning to stop unelected quangos effectively vetoing democratic decisions.

That road may have hit the buffers, at least for the time being, but the associated housing allocations all remain and can be seen in Taverham—it is a very live issue in my constituency at the moment—and elsewhere. This is exactly what residents hate: the process taking over from the reality on the ground. The cart is put before the horse, and then it is going in one direction and cannot be stopped. There is no review. The anger that I suspect we all experience on the doorsteps when residents feel they are being ignored is very real.

In November last year, the Government published a rapid evidence report on the impacts of integrated land use and transport planning, which summarised evidence on how combining land use and transport planning affects travel. One of the first suggestions in the rapid evidence assessment for policy makers making land use and transport decisions was:

“Developing awareness of potential unintended consequences via short scoping studies ahead of major investments.”

It highlighted that that could

“enable mitigating action to be taken where appropriate.”

Anyone who examines the Government’s record over the past 18 months realises that they have an exceptional talent for not considering the consequences of their actions. Perhaps the Minister would like to feed that suggestion into the wider Government.

Let us also look at planning and development in areas with much better local transport provision than many of us currently enjoy. One might think that areas with more developed transport networks would be able to encourage significant planning and development without some of the issues that we have been debating. Utilising areas such as brownfield sites close to existing locations should be an important way to help with some of the planning challenges posed in rural areas including Norfolk.

In London, however, which has by far the best transport network in the country, and significantly subsidised transport services with buses, we have seen the London Mayor’s absolute failure to deliver housing. Just look at last year; what has happened is really shocking. In London last year there were just 5,891 housing starts. That is 94% below target and a 75% year-on-year decline—the steepest drop in the country, the lowest tally since records began almost 40 years ago, and the lowest figure for any major city in the developed world this century. What a record.

[Rebecca Paul]

It is important to flag that reducing the number of houses being built in London pushes people in London out into constituencies such as mine. The Government say, “We’re building more houses so that children and grandchildren can stay close to their families,” but what happens is that those in London move into other constituencies. Does my hon. Friend agree that that does not really achieve the aim?

[Jerome Mayhew]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The failure of the London Mayor is putting pressure on her constituency and many other communities in the wider orbit of London.

The Government will say they are trying to take action to integrate these elements and to ensure that planning development does not negatively impact local transport, but in trying to deliver their targets on development, they should stop and consider the steps they can take to make it easier to build infrastructure and support planning that actually delivers local infrastructure improvements, before new populations arise.

15:46

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, as always, Sir Desmond.

I thank the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) for securing this debate and thank Members for all their comments and contributions. I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss how planning developments impact on local transport, a subject of great importance and a priority in the context of our housing ambitions. An awful lot has been said today; Members will forgive my aversion to taking many interventions, as I think it is important that I respond to many of the comments made.

Aligning housing and transport is essential for delivering homes that are connected and sustainable and that provide genuine choices for people. To that end, we have prioritised making changes to the planning system in support of growth and place-making. That includes providing the tools that local planning authorities need to ensure that developments are supported by the right transport infrastructure for the local context.

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government is currently consulting on revisions to the national planning policy framework. If progressed, these revisions will deliver better located development with more sustainable travel choices, supported by robust guidance.

We have already made changes through the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 to streamline the planning process for nationally significant infrastructure projects, which will speed up the pace of decision making on critical projects. The Act also places a duty on combined authorities, combined county authorities, upper tier county councils and unitary authorities to prepare spatial development strategies, which is an important opportunity to set the context for local plans, which will have to be in general conformity with the strategy once it has been adopted. Taken together, these changes will make a real difference to the people we all serve, delivering more housing, greater transport choices and better designed, healthier places.

The Government believe that an integrated, affordable and sustainable transport network is vital to unlocking homes with good access to jobs, education and public services. That includes improving bus services, boosting passenger numbers and giving local leaders greater control.

To support that work, last year my Department launched the connectivity tool, which brings together transport and land use data to show how well locations are connected to jobs and key services, helping communities to identify infrastructure gaps and plan development sustainably. The tool is already being used across the country to ensure that new housing aligns with existing and planned infrastructure. I believe the tool will empower local government, developers and planners to make better decisions about where development should happen, and to plan for the infrastructure needed to support it.

In parallel, the Railways Bill will establish Great British Railways as a directing mind. One of its objectives is to facilitate homebuilding and place-making. Great British Railways will be outward-facing and will work in partnership with mayoral strategic authorities, enabling a greater focus on local priorities such as housing and regeneration.

We have already taken action. Platform4, a company launched in November 2025, is already working to develop disused brownfield land—real land—with an ambition to deliver 40,000 homes over the coming decade. That will support our housing, regeneration and growth ambitions by creating new places to live, work, learn and play, putting the railway at the heart of our neighbourhoods.

The hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted also mentioned green-belt policy and its implications for villages such as Redbourn. As I understand it, the proposed changes to the definition of grey belt seek to better enable the identification of grey-belt land when ensuring protection of the green belt. Alongside that, the introduction of the spatial development strategies will identify broad locations for housing growth across larger geographies than the district level, while at the same time co-ordinating the provision of strategic infrastructure and improving the environment and climate resilience. That will help to better distribute developments and identify their appropriate scale in places like Hertfordshire. In reference to major developments in the surrounding areas, all planning decisions are taken on a case-by-case basis, based on national and local planning policies and other material considerations.

The Government approved the special development order for the Universal Studios site in December 2025, noting the project’s national significance. Extensive transport works to support the surrounding network are to be delivered, including the expansion of Wixams railway station to enable public transport journeys to the site.

Given the ongoing legal proceedings, there is not much I can say about Luton airport. However, the Secretary of State for Transport’s decision letter on the case sets out her reasoning for that consent.

Regarding the cumulative impacts of developments, the Government are operationalising a new approach to transport planning through changes to the national planning policy framework. By taking a vision-led approach to transport planning that sets clear outcomes from the outset of the planning process, we can deliver well-connected communities that are served by sustainable transport and co-located with key services, breaking the cycle that has left people with a lack of transport choice and ever more congested road networks. I believe that will make it easier for new developments to deliver the transport options that people need and want and will help decision makers to better manage the cumulative impacts of significant developments affecting places such as Redbourn.

To respond to the specific concerns about congestion, National Highways is a statutory consultee on planning applications and will assess the impact of new developments on the strategic road network. National Highways expects developers to explore all options to reduce dependence on the strategic road network for local journeys. National Highways is empowered to recommend refusal of planning applications that would cause substantial impact on the road network, including issuing holding responses to enable more evidence to be provided, or to provide conditions for mitigating the impact of development.

To pick up on a few other points that Members raised, I understand that the local plan in St Albans is currently being replaced. It is one of the oldest and most out-of-date plans. I recognise that it has been inherited—it dates back to 1994. It is expected that a new plan will be adopted in March. The Government’s proposed national policy framework outlines that all development proposals should be capable of proceeding without having a severe adverse impact on transport networks in terms of capacity and congestion, including the cumulative impact. Local decision makers should consider the cumulative impact on transport when deciding their planning applications.

On rail or rail operators that are required to plan services based on demand and value for money, Great British Railways will have a significant impact, as I have mentioned. Govia Thameslink Railway has shared demand modelling with the Department, which does include projections for planned development along the Thameslink network. The Department requires all operators to plan future timetables that reflect expected demand and provide value for money for the taxpayer. We will continue to work with Govia Thameslink Railway as it develops its proposals for development along that route.

On bus funding, I am sure all Members will welcome the £3 billion of multi-year funding that is going to support bus services across the country. Hertfordshire county council will be allocated £34.1 million under the local authority bus grant from 2026-27 to 2028-29. That is in addition to the £12.2 million already allocated. For the first time, the formula includes a rurality aspect to make sure that rural areas receive their fair share.

Moving on to the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), I find it hard to accept some of his comments. We inherited a housing crisis caused by the Conservatives that has seen house building plummet. The Government will not shy away from taking the decisive action needed to fix that for good. This Government are turning the tide on the Tories’ housing crisis, which has seen 1.3 million families stuck on housing waiting lists and over 165,000 children growing up in temporary accommodation. On affordable housing, our new £39 billion social and affordable housing programme will build around 300,000 new homes over 10 years, including at least 60% for social rent—around 180,000 homes. That is six times the number of social and affordable homes built in the last decade.

Today’s debate has demonstrated the importance of integrating transport and housing and seeing them not as separate systems, but as one. I trust that the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted can see how, taken together, those reforms represent the meaningful re-gearing of the transport and spatial planning systems to fix the housing crisis while delivering the transport that our communities need.

[Steff Aquarone]

On a point of order, Sir Desmond. I want to draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a serving county councillor.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)]

Thank you.

15:56

[Victoria Collins]

I thank all hon. Members who have spoken. I reiterate that the people of Harpenden, Berkhamsted, Tring, Redbourn, Sandridge and all our local villages are not nimbys. They understand the need for housing—and genuinely affordable housing. However, it is clear that they cannot understand a planning system that hands power to developers and takes it away from communities. This debate has shown that many Members and their local populations have the same frustrations.

What the Minister talked about is a nice display of how, while local councils supposedly have these powers, in many ways the reality undermines their use of them, as I outlined, leaving communities still facing a developer-led system. That means doubling housing targets without doubling infrastructure. Nor can people understand a system that leaves villages such as Redbourn facing 70% growth through the grey belt. As the Minister mentioned the grey belt, I should clarify that it does not protect villages, it protects towns. That is a problem with the NPPF, and something that I will be putting forward in the consultation, and yet local people are also being expected to sacrifice precious landscapes for homes their own children still cannot afford.

Trains cancelled daily; buses that stop at 2 pm; roads built for horse-drawn carts that are now gridlocked—that is the reality of planning without infrastructure. I welcome the current reviews of the NPPF, but what will happen to villages such as Redbourn and others under the current planning system, still outlined by Labour, if they turn out to have been dealt a really bad card? Will they be able to retrofit some of that planning infrastructure? It really is an issue for our local communities.

I would also push gently on the Thameslink question. Some of the proposals are welcome, but it is going to be a massive issue for so many communities all along the Bedford-Brighton link. We really must look again at that infrastructure. There is a real issue at the core of Thameslink, whether around Croydon or elsewhere.

I ask the Minister to take back one message to his team: communities like mine do not want to choose between housing and infrastructure; they both need to be planned together from the start. That infrastructure and community-led development are the least that our communities deserve.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the impact of planning developments on local transport.