Flooding: Rural Communities

Debate between Alicia Kearns and Helen Morgan

Wednesday 18th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alicia Kearns]

I am in quite an unenviable position, in that only some of my constituency is covered by an internal drainage board, but that capital is absolutely fundamental. I am sure the Minister has heard my right hon. Friend’s intervention and will be able to reflect that in her speech—I was going to ask about that issue, but I no longer need to do that, so I am grateful to my right hon. Friend.

I want to touch briefly on flood alleviation schemes. We need strategies to store water better, because we are moving from droughts to floods and back to droughts. Water resilience and water security should be treated with equal importance to food security.

Turning to planning and development, the Government plan significantly—and, in my view, disproportionately—to increase the number of homes built in rural areas. All the cities around me have seen significant reductions in how many houses they have to build, while each of my areas has seen an increase in what is expected of over 100%, despite our consistently over-delivering on the targets previously set. Planning and development have to be done responsibly, and I fear that so much of the building is going to be on floodplains, or on the outskirts of small villages whose drainage has only just kept up with modern-day life and modern times. Those villages will find their infrastructure overrun by these additional housing pressures.

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

The hon. Member is making an excellent speech and has taken a huge number of interventions, for which I thank her. When it comes to development, flood management strategies are not taking into account the run-off that additional development will cause; for example, the upper Severn catchment management scheme is looking at opportunities to store water, but not at risks from additional development. We know that the drainage arrangements that are put in place, such as attenuation ponds, are often not maintained into the future. Does the hon. Member agree that we need a better plan for making sure that when development happens, the run-off does not affect the existing residents?

[Alicia Kearns]

Run-off has unfortunately been a real problem. I have only three towns in my constituency. They are not substantial, but Oakham in particular has seen a real issue with run-off, and that is all from new properties. It needs to be dealt with, and it speaks to the need for incentives and sticks. New fiduciary financial liabilities would make clear to developers that if they build new homes and in the short term—between the following five to 15 years—there is a significant increase in flooding that was not previously occurring, they should be liable for action to build additional flood prevention aids or to upgrade the flood defences or drains they originally built. That brings me to the planning process, where it would be sensible if water companies became statutory consultees.

Turning to local councils, a couple of years ago we Conservatives had to force the first ever special meeting in the history of Rutland county council, because the council was not responding on flooding and was insisting that those who had to move out of their homes would have to pay council tax on both their original property and the one they were renting. The council’s long overdue section 19 flooding report has finally been published, but it had little about what the council would do to protect us in the future. Instead, it focused on telling us all what the problems are. First, we already knew that, and secondly, it took the council pretty much 18 months from the first flood to report, and we had already had a second flood in the meantime. We all know our communities and we know what the issues are.

A statutory limit on how long section 19 reports can take is necessary, but councils should also have to go beyond just setting out the problem and lay out the solutions that are needed. Will the Government do that, and will they mandate that those who have had to move out of their homes due to flooding should be protected from the cost of covering council tax on two properties? Frankly, I am tired of having that fight with my local councils every time we have significant flooding.

I will touch on some of the flooding heroes in our communities. Phil Britton and the entire Greatford parish council and flood warden team rebuilt and recovered in the most extraordinary way. They have gone on to be determined to help other communities to protect themselves better. It is so beautiful to see them wanting to share their expertise and plans with others. Richard Besant, chair of Langham parish council, has advocated and pushed relentlessly on behalf of his village. I mentioned Philip Sagar, the chair of Tallington parish council, who has been a persistent and principled voice for residents who have been facing avoidable misery. I also touched on Yolanda and Chris Stevenson, who fought not only for their own pub in Whissendine, but for the entire community when others frankly would have given up and hidden in a hole.

Those are just some of the people who have held our communities together, and they are remarkable, and I am so proud to represent them. There are more who I wish I could name who have stepped up. It should not be left to those who care passionately to improve our flood defences or respond in an emergency. It should not be councillors, such as Kiloran Heckels or Karen Payne, who find themselves out in the dark trying to get to the bottom of things. In Whitwell, we literally had people putting on scuba gear, diving down to the bottom of the water—that is how deep it was—to try to get things out of the drains to get the water moving. It also should not be left to farmers, who are often our first responders and flood wardens, to stand in the breach because the authorities simply have not responded.

Let me be clear about what I am asking. I am disappointed that our communities have been excluded from the flood funds that were announced overnight, and I would be grateful if the Government revisited that decision. I cannot believe that we are not some of the worst affected communities in the country, not least from the conversations I have had with the Environment Agency. The Government should do more to support local flood resilience groups because, as we discussed earlier, our communities know what is best for them. We know where the flooding has happened, for how long and when there are new patterns.

On insurance, the Flood Re scheme must be updated. Can section 19 reports please have far more of a focus on action and a time limit? We need to end double council tax for victims of flooding and challenge the existing orthodoxy on dredging that is letting our communities down. On developers, we need financial liabilities to ensure that developers who build new homes tackle flooding pre-emptively or are held to account when they have not done so sufficiently. We need water companies to become statutory consultees in the planning process. Finally, as I have touched on, I want the Government to review the flooding recovery framework and in particular the 50-house threshold. As it stands, it systematically excludes my communities that are incredibly vulnerable.

In conclusion, the heavy rains will come again, and I fear they will come far too soon, and our communities cannot face this challenge alone. I have touched on some of the villages that have suffered flooding, but we have had it in Whitwell, Whissendine, Careby, including Careby’s beautiful church, Creeton, Edenham, Braceborough, Ashwell, Stretton, Glooston, Lyddington, Stonton Wyvill, Langham, Tugby, Tallington, Greatford and Barleythorpe Brooke. Those are all in the last two years, and there are far more who have suffered.

Rural communities deserve protection and recovery should not depend on population density and protections for those who can afford the premium. I suspect that these are principles that command support throughout the Chamber, regardless of political alliance, but principles unmatched by policy are just words, and I believe that we in our villages deserve much more than words. This really is one of our foremost concerns and priorities.

I am grateful to the Minister for listening to the points that I have raised, and she is very welcome to come to my next flooding summit. I will bring three counties together if necessary, which may be a shock to their systems, but we would do it if she were willing to come and have those discussions. I look forward very much to hearing her response this evening.

Planning, the Green Belt and Rural Affairs

Debate between Alicia Kearns and Helen Morgan

Friday 19th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Helen Morgan]

The hon. Gentleman is muttering from a sedentary position. He may wish to know that my grandparents lived in social housing, and I have no particular prejudices against it whatsoever.

We are committed not only to building the homes that are so important to easing the crisis throughout the housing market, but to ensuring that those new homes are of a high standard, that they are zero carbon and that they are built alongside proper infrastructure that provides communities with the services and amenities they need. Integrating public service delivery has to be part of the planning process, so in principle we welcome the Government’s plans to streamline the delivery of critical infrastructure, including in the housing sector, in the forthcoming planning and infrastructure Bill, but we need to be clear that the current system has benefited developers rather than communities. The Bill must take that into account.

Crude targets alone have led to many developments being given permission, only for affordable and social housing elements to be watered down on the basis of viability once permission is granted. That must change. We know that local authorities are best placed to make the decisions about housing in their areas, so I urge the Government to ensure that their mandatory housing targets are built from the bottom up—by determining the type of housing and infrastructure communities need, and empowering local government to build social homes where they are most needed. We need the necessary infrastructure, including GPs, schools, bus stops and bus routes, while also ensuring that there is appropriate green space and access to the countryside, which is important for health and wellbeing. Our experience is that residents support good plans with good infrastructure.

Now, I imagine that we will use the term “nimby” in this debate, and it has already been used about the Liberal Democrats, but it is not appropriate to approve housing in areas that are unsuitable—for example, where there is a high risk of flooding. It is not being a nimby to oppose poor planning; it is common sense. Local authorities are under enormous pressure and we know that their planning departments are overstretched. I welcome the Deputy Prime Minister’s comments on that point. They need proper funding to ensure that they make good and consistent decisions, and that their councillors are well advised.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

The hon. Member is talking about infrastructure and about decisions being made in the best interests of our communities, so can I ask why Liberal Democrat-run Rutland county council this week turned down an application for a new day care centre for people with special educational needs without even taking it to the planning committee, meaning that we now have to rely on the council’s service, rather than providing choice to ensure that anyone with learning disabilities or other disabilities in our community gets the support they need?

[Helen Morgan]

I do not know the details of that individual case, but we need to ensure that planning departments are properly funded so that the decisions made by planning officers are appropriate. Without knowing the details, I do now know whether it is a good development or a poor one, but those departments need to be empowered to make decisions correctly.

Some proposals for development are inappropriate and some are downright dangerous—we mentioned the building of houses on floodplains earlier. The only insurer to re-insure houses on floodplains is due to close its operations in 15 years’ time. We cannot build houses on floodplains. It will not be possible for them to be insured or sold; homeowners will be trapped.

We should also not be building housing developments without additional schools or GP surgeries. Most importantly, we should not be building housing developments where the developers do not prepare the roads and green spaces to an acceptable standard and do not allow them to be adopted by the local authority, but set up a shared management company and leave the homeowners fleeced for the rest of their home ownership experience. I encourage the Deputy Prime Minister to consider that in the forthcoming legislation.

Good councillors approve planning for good developments. That is why, on the days when the Conservatives are not accusing us of being nimbys, they are telling people that we are going to concrete over their countryside.

Planning is not just about housing. We have many demands on our countryside: housing, renewable energy, nature restoration and, importantly, the growing of food. We need to simplify planning so that all those things can happen. Housing, renewable energy and job creation are incredibly important, but I urge the Government to ensure that when they go ahead, it is not at the expense of food production. The Liberal Democrats have called for the development of a land use strategy so that these important and competing demands can be balanced, and so that we use land in the optimal way, protecting the highest grade arable land for food production and putting the infrastructure of renewable energy and housing in less prime places. I therefore hope that the Government will consider a land use strategy as part of their planning reform.

That brings me to another important area of the countryside: our waterways and our beaches. It is a scandal that raw sewage has been allowed to be dumped into our rivers and on to our beaches, while water company executives have taken home huge bonuses and their—often overseas—shareholders have taken huge dividends. The Liberal Democrats are proud to have led the campaign to end the sewage crisis. We welcome the water (special measures) Bill and will be watching closely to ensure that the water regulator is given the powers it needs to finally end this sewage outrage.

I will move on to rural affairs. There was no mention in the King’s Speech of rural communities or priorities for the countryside, which I hope means that the new Government will be ensuring that every policy is rural-proofed and that the demands of delivering public services in rural areas, where the population is spread over a large area, are being considered.

I also want to mention the English devolution bill. The Liberal Democrats are the proud voices of local communities and community-led politics, and we absolutely welcome steps to devolve power away from Westminster, but I ask the Secretary of State to confirm what that will look like for those councils without a devo deal, a metro mayor or a combined authority mayor. It is important that all local councils have the powers and funding to deliver for their communities. That funding must reflect the cost of delivering services in rural areas. Rural councils have been taken for granted for far too long. We need to ensure that people who live in rural areas, who also see increases in their council tax, are getting the public services that they deserve.

Rurality affects the delivery of all types of services, but I want to touch on just a few key areas. Health is an important issue in my North Shropshire constituency, where we have seen huge problems with GP and dentistry access and a crisis in our A&E service. While I welcome the Government’s plans to tackle the crisis in mental health service provision, which is also a big problem in rural areas, we really want to see rural-focused policy to deal with the recruitment crisis in rural areas and the cost of delivering health services over large distances, and to ensure that people who live a long way from a hospital or diagnostic centre can travel to it more easily.

That brings me to public transport, which is quite problematic in Shropshire. We have lost 63% of our bus miles since 2015, which makes it difficult for anybody to access work opportunities, social opportunities, educational opportunities and, indeed, health services. I am really pleased that the Government will allow local authorities to franchise their own bus services—the Liberal Democrats have long called for that—but I would like to see the detail of how that will work and how we will get the funding to kick-start those routes and get labour moving properly around our countryside.