(1 day, 22 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to lead this debate on the role of masterplans in large-scale development. This debate will be of particular importance to many of my constituents in Lightwood and surrounding areas, where some 3,000 homes have been allocated through Stoke-on-Trent’s emerging local plan under site BL1.
I want to begin by making my position clear: I oppose development of this scale in Lightwood. It is the largest single housing allocation in the entire local plan and would, in practice, create a substantial new community on the edge of the city. Like many constituents who have contacted me, I do not believe that the existing infrastructure, public services and transport network can accommodate development of this scale. I have consistently raised objections to the scale of this proposal. However, I recognise the reality that development is likely to proceed, particularly given that elements of the site are under council ownership.
I also believe that the centrally determined housing target for Stoke-on-Trent of 948 homes a year is a little too high, given the site’s tight administrative boundaries and limited land. It is concerning that we have reached the regulation 19 stage of the local plan process without residents having any meaningful detail about how the strategic allocation of 3,000 homes would be delivered. There remains no comprehensive framework setting out infrastructure requirements, no clear understanding of how cumulative impacts will be mitigated and no shared vision about how a development of this scale will integrate with both existing communities and the wider area.
What makes this particularly difficult to understand is that residents elsewhere in Stoke-on-Trent have been afforded precisely that opportunity. The council prepared a masterplan for the strategic site at Packmoor, despite it being around a third of the size of the proposed Lightwood allocation. That process provided a clear vision for the site and enabled residents to engage with the overall shape of development before individual planning applications came forward. By contrast, residents in Lightwood are being asked to comment on a strategic allocation of 3,000 homes without the benefit of a comparable masterplan, and without the same level of consultation on how the site will ultimately be delivered. It is a clear example of inconsistency in the planning process.
Residents should not receive different levels of engagement, transparency and certainty about the future of their communities simply because they happen to live in different postcodes. When a development is large enough to create an entirely new neighbourhood, it should not be allowed to emerge through a series of disconnected planning applications. It should be planned from the outset through a comprehensive masterplan that establishes a clear vision for the area and provides a framework for future development. In Lightwood’s case, the local planning authority should be taking a proactive role in preparing and co-ordinating such a masterplan.
Masterplans are not simply about determining where houses will go. They are about creating successful places and sustainable, accessible communities, both new and existing. They provide the strategic framework that brings together housing, transport, education provision, healthcare capacity, utilities, mains water provided by water companies, environmental enhancement and design principles into a coherent vision for long-term growth. Most importantly, they ensure that supporting infrastructure is planned alongside development, rather than treated as an afterthought once planning applications have already been submitted.
In that regard, masterplans are entirely consistent with the ambitions of the national planning policy framework, which seeks to promote sustainable development, effective placemaking and infrastructure-led growth. While national policy recognises the value of masterplans and design codes, their use remains largely discretionary. The experience of Lightwood and Packmoor demonstrates the inconsistency that can result. That is why I believe there is a strong case for a clearer national requirement that developments above an appropriate scale should be supported by a comprehensive masterplan.
I am not suggesting that every housing development requires such a masterplan. A scheme involving a few dozen homes is clearly different from a strategic allocation comprising thousands of properties. However, where development may be delivered over many years, involve multiple landowners or developers, and have substantial implications for infrastructure and existing communities, the case for master planning becomes clear. In such circumstances, a comprehensive masterplan should be established before individual planning applications are determined.
Without a clear overarching framework, there is a real risk of piecemeal development. Individual planning applications may appear acceptable in isolation, but collectively they can create unintended consequences for transport networks, public services, drainage systems and environmental assets. Opportunities for integrated transport links, co-ordinated infrastructure and high-quality placemaking can easily be lost when development comes forward parcel by parcel.
A masterplan provides the framework that ensures every proposal contributes to an agreed vision for the site. It should establish how movement through the site will work, where community facilities will be located, how public transport will be integrated, where drainage infrastructure will be provided, and how development will connect with surrounding neighbourhoods. It should also identify how environmental assets will be protected, enhanced and connected across the site as a whole. That brings me to a particularly important issue: green infrastructure.
Green space is often treated as a residual element of development, fitted into whatever land remains after housing numbers have been maximised. A proper masterplan takes the opposite approach; it recognises that accessible green spaces, recreation areas, tree planting and biodiversity corridors are fundamental components of healthy communities. They contribute to physical and mental wellbeing, create opportunities for recreation and social interaction, improve climate resilience and flood mitigation, and help maintain a connection between communities and the natural environment. Green infrastructure cannot be viewed as an optional extra; it is essential and ensures that growth enhances rather than diminishes the places people call home.
Infrastructure planning is equally important. Questions about road capacity, public transport provision, walking and cycling routes, school places, healthcare services, utilities and drainage cannot sensibly be addressed on an application-by-application basis. They must be considered collectively, and in the context of both future residents and the communities that already exist around the development.
That is particularly important in relation to mains and water infrastructure. I remain concerned that the mains water companies do not upgrade their systems to match the new developments. My village of Upper Tean has frequently had that problem. The developers meet their requirements on mains water, sewage and flood mitigations, but when something hits the mains systems, we get manhole covers blowing out and flooding happening all over. People’s homes get flooded, as well as businesses and play areas, with the ensuing environmental problems.
A masterplan should also ensure, if we are serious about creating inclusive communities, the development of accessible homes and communities, including bungalows, so that they meet the needs of those who are ageing and have disabilities or are frail. The English homes study found that 91% of homes do not meet the necessary requirements for wheelchair users to visit, let alone live in them. Data by Habinteg Housing Association, which provides thousands of accessible social homes across the country, shows that wheelchair users could wait up to 47 years for a suitable accessible property to become available.
Masterplans can be a valuable way of ensuring that future housing developments meet existing local housing needs, including the estimated 20,000 wheelchair users nationally on local authority housing waiting lists. Currently, fewer than 2% of newbuild homes are bungalows, meaning that most are not fully accessible.
Sites such as Lightwood are not a blank canvas. People already live there. They rely on local roads, footpaths, public transport, schools, healthcare services and community facilities. As we work to deliver the homes that this country needs, we must make full use of the planning tools available to ensure those homes become successful communities, accessible to all. I ask the Minister to consider strengthening national planning policy, so that large-scale developments, above an appropriate threshold that can be discussed, are required to have a comprehensive masterplan in place before individual planning applications are brought forward.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) on securing this important debate. I commend her for the compelling argument she makes about the importance of planning effectively for large-scale residential developments to ensure that they are well-connected, well-designed, sustainable and attractive places where people want to live, with all the infrastructure, amenities and services needed to sustain thriving communities.
While I note my hon. Friend’s comments, both today and previously, in respect of the BL1 green-belt site in Lightwood that is identified in the draft local plan, I know she is cognisant of the fact that I cannot comment on specific local plans, sites or planning applications, due to the quasi-judicial nature of the planning process, but I will make some general points that I hope will be of use.
I start with plan making. The plan-led approach is, and must remain, the cornerstone of our planning system. The benefits of an up-to-date local plan are significant and well known across the Chamber. Local plans are the best way for communities to shape decisions about how to deliver the housing and wider development that areas need. They enable local areas to set the strategy for future growth and the approach to protecting and enhancing the environment, and they provide the certainty and confidence required to bring development forward across the country.
In the absence of an up-to-date local plan, there is a high likelihood that development will come forward on a piecemeal and speculative basis, as my hon. Friend mentioned, with reduced public engagement and fewer guarantees that it will make the most of an area’s potential. That is why the Government remain determined to drive local plans to adoption as quickly as possible in order to achieve our ambition of universal plan coverage and to ensure that plans contribute positively to increasing rates of house building and infrastructure delivery.
My hon. Friend will know that the emerging Stoke-on-Trent city council local plan is undergoing the regulation 19 consultation, and I encourage her and her constituents to engage meaningfully with that process, if they have not already done so, to ensure that any specific concerns are understood by the authority even at this advanced stage. Anyone who has submitted a representation during the consultation on the draft plan may make a request to be heard by the inspector during the examination.
Once submitted for examination, it will be for the independent inspector to examine the plan and the proposed site allocations to ensure that they are legally compliant and sound. Of course, it is for the inspector to ensure that the plan is in conformity with national policy, which has always been clear that local plans should identify the infrastructure necessary to support the delivery of the local plan, providing certainty and better outcomes for communities, businesses and developers.
I want briefly to mention the interaction between design guides, codes and masterplans and local plans. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that local planning authorities can identify and prioritise where design guides, codes and masterplans are produced and can make provision for their adoption as supplementary plans. There is no requirement for them to be adopted as part of the development plan, but where they are incorporated into development plans, they are afforded more weight on that basis.
It is important that for those key sites where a local authority wants to see a masterplan in place, they are incorporated into plans. They can also be produced as part of the development management process to support the delivery of larger site allocations. In the new national planning policy framework that we published on 17 August, we included new policy—policy L1, for those who are interested—which encourages the use of masterplans, where appropriate, to optimise the use of site allocations. We included this in response to consultation feedback.
My hon. Friend made a number of specific points in the context of her concerns about the BL1 site about large-scale residential development and the importance of master planning to ensure the best outcomes for communities, and I very much agree with her about the benefits. Delivering at scale does provide opportunities for comprehensive development where homes, infrastructure, green space and community facilities can be planned together from the outset. National planning policy has long required local plans to take this joined-up approach, including by setting out the infrastructure needed to support growth and clear expectations for the quality of places to be created. That includes using design tools such as masterplans and design codes where they are needed.
In response to the specific points my hon. Friend raised, the new NPPF that we published on 17 August has strengthened national planning policy in this area for future plans and sites, including by introducing a definition of what is called a strategic site—a site of at least 1,500 dwellings, most often to be delivered in multiple phases, and that has significant infrastructure requirements. Through that NPPF, we have set clear expectations that such development should come forward in suitable locations, be supported by necessary infrastructure and facilities, address strategic environmental opportunities and—I quote from the glossary—“require a masterplan.” Going forward, we require a masterplan for any strategic site of over 1,500 units to be taken forward. To my hon. Friend’s point on accessibility, the new NPPF also strengthens expectations for a mix of homes and tenures on strategic sites.
While it will principally shape future plan making and future site allocations, it does, I hope, demonstrate this Government’s direction of travel, ensuring that large-scale developments are planned comprehensively, supported by timely infrastructure and capable of being well-designed, sustainable places even where a stand-alone masterplan is not in place. However, I understand my hon. Friend’s concerns in the context of her draft local plan being assessed under the old framework, not the new one.
I want to touch briefly on design and infrastructure. I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of providing a long-term vision to guide the delivery of well-designed, large-scale development. Again, national planning policy is clear that local authorities should identify in their development plans where masterplans are necessary to achieve positive design outcomes and that they should use masterplans, where appropriate, to optimise the use of both allocated sites and smaller windfall sites. It also requires that masterplans reflect a clear understanding of local character and the wider context of an area, and should be informed by effective community engagement.
We are not complacent; we want to build on what is already in place. Our draft planning practice guidance on design and placemaking, which we consulted on between January and March this year, will go even further to support local authorities to prepare effective masterplans in collaboration with communities and key stakeholders.
A chief concern that my hon. Friend raised was infrastructure, the provision of which, as she made clear, communities across the country rightly expect to be delivered alongside development, rather than being an afterthought. We have been clear that while we need to build many more homes, they need to be supported by the right infrastructure to ensure that we are creating functioning places where people want to live and work.
The new NPPF has strengthened existing national policy to ensure that developers and local plans deliver much needed affordable homes and the infrastructure required to support new development such as schools and GP surgeries. Through the new NPPF, we have placed a greater emphasis on up-front clarity on expected developer contributions, reducing the risk of lengthy negotiations and again providing greater certainty for communities.
More widely, our new NPPF supports the provision of new community facilities and public service infrastructure, particularly where new development would have a significant impact on the number of people needing to use those services. The NPPF is also clear that, in planning for new community facilities and public service infrastructure, authorities should engage proactively with local communities and the relevant service providers, taking into account relevant strategies to improve health, address inequalities and foster social and cultural wellbeing for all sections of the community.
At the same time, the Government are backing delivery centrally with the launch of a new national housing delivery fund. That includes about £5 billion of capital grant funding to address viability challenges across the country, including through remediation of brownfield sites and the provision of unlocking infrastructure. The fund is designed to deliver a range of interventions, including large strategic schemes as well as faster, smaller sites and viability gap projects. Its aim is to accelerate housing delivery, increase supply and support our ambition to build 1.5 million new homes in this Parliament. It sits alongside the £16 billion of financial capacity that we have available to us through our national housing bank.
On landscapes and green places, again, it is important for me to say to my hon. Friend that the NPPF highlights the importance of conserving and enhancing landscape character, the natural beauty of the countryside and higher quality agricultural land. Local plans may designate land as local green space where that would safeguard green areas of particular value to the local community. We have also introduced a new requirement for plans to set standards for green infrastructure, defined as a multi-functional network of green and blue spaces.
The Government are obviously also committed to the ongoing protection of England’s green belts, which have served England’s towns and cities well over many decades. We have not shied away, however, from the fact that we do need to take forward a more strategic, targeted approach to green-belt land designation and release where that is necessary; but when local authorities have to release green belt under exceptional circumstances, we expect them to prioritise previously developed and lower-quality grey-belt land within the green belt.
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for securing the debate and bringing this important issue to the House’s attention. I am passionate about well-designed masterplans, which can really reduce opposition to development by convincing people that the development coming forward is infrastructure-led, well designed and sustainable. The Government are committed to delivering the right homes that people need while ensuring that development is supported by the appropriate infrastructure, working in tandem with local areas. We have, as I set out today, taken bold steps to reform the planning system and to drive wider changes across the housing market to improve supply, quality and fairness. I look forward to working closely with colleagues to build a housing system that is both fair and sustainable, and to drive up the quality and indeed coverage of masterplans, particularly on strategic sites across the country.
Question put and agreed to.