Fire Station Closures

Brian Mathew Excerpts

Thursday 12th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to open this debate on fire station closures. I would like to begin by paying tribute to the bravery of firefighters across the country.

[John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate and paying tribute to the bravery of firefighters. As the Member of Parliament for Glasgow East, I wish to pay tribute to the brave firefighters in Glasgow who risked their lives to battle the fire on Union Street this past week, preventing casualties and saving Glasgow Central station. This fire is absolutely devastating for the people who made their livelihoods and fed their families by working in that building, which has now closed.

Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that, in Scotland under the SNP, 1,250 firefighter posts have been cut since 2013, and high-rise appliances—critical for tackling fires like the one in Glasgow on Sunday—have been slashed from 26 to 16? Two of those appliances were in Glasgow, but both were unavailable on Sunday, it is understood.

[Brian Mathew]

I thank the hon. Member for those points; he made them well, and I take them on. We should all think of what happened in Glasgow at the weekend.

Family members of firefighters from Wiltshire are in the Gallery, and I thank them for coming. I know of firefighters from Dorset and Wiltshire who would have liked to be here, but as on-call professionals, they are in their communities today, ensuring that cover is in place, and they will mobilise if the call comes in. We owe them all a debt of gratitude.

I have met firefighters at a number of fire stations in Wiltshire. They are dedicated local people demonstrating real pride in place, protecting their area, and they have genuine concern about what any proposals mean for fire safety in rural communities. There is a consultation taking place on the closure of eight fire stations across Dorset and Wiltshire. To put that in perspective, that is eight engines supported by nearly 100 firefighting staff who keep communities such as Bradford-on-Avon safe. The town’s fire station has served for generations, and the consequences of its closure would be profound. That goes for all eight stations listed for closure.

The crews attend over 500 incidents per year, ranging from house fires to flood response, from road traffic collisions to river rescues. Those are the emergencies that make the headlines, but the everyday call-outs are no less important to those in trouble, and they include freeing trapped livestock, assisting vulnerable residents who are stuck in their home, and ensuring that partner agencies know about any safeguarding risks.

The stations act as natural points of emergency response co-ordination for events that we hope will never happen, but for which they must always be prepared. Beyond the communities the stations serve, the closures will have an impact on the whole Dorset and Wiltshire service. More than 60% of incidents that crews from the eight stations attend are outside the station catchment area. My hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Sarah Gibson), who is also my constituency neighbour, has written to me to say that she shares the concerns of the fire service and the many residents across Wiltshire who are worried about the impact of the closures on our community.

Last summer, firefighters from Bradford-on-Avon travelled 50 miles to tackle a large wildfire on Holt Heath in Dorset. The incident was a stark reminder of how our changing climate is adding to the burden on fire and rescue services. Wildfires, flooding and extreme weather are no longer once-in-a-generation events; they are becoming part of the operational norm. In spite of massive flooding during Storm Bert in my constituency and, indeed, this year in Devon, Cornwall and the east midlands, fire services across the country receive no specific funding for flood responses. How can we contemplate such sweeping cuts to emergency response capacity and civil resilience when, in fact, more is required?

Since my election, I have been in regular contact with Dorset and Wiltshire Fire and Rescue Service leadership, who have told me about the increasingly challenging funding environment. Since the merger in 2016, the service has had to find savings of over £15 million, which has led to a 15% reduction in firefighter posts and the withdrawal of second engines from five stations. Though no one disputes the need to focus on value for money, the service is already recognised as outstanding for efficiency by the independent inspectorate. The service’s current operations are lean, and ongoing modernisation is keeping capabilities up to standard, but the obvious question looms of how any further cost pressures can be absorbed.

The Government’s three-year settlement has been a welcome aid to longer-term planning. Indeed, the Minister will be quick to point out the Government’s 4.1% annual uplift over this period; that arises because they are allowing the fire authority to raise the council tax precept by £5 to offset the 19.5% decline in central Government funding between 2026 and 2029. However, at the core of that settlement is the Treasury’s assumption that the area’s council tax base, which is driven by new housing development, will increase by 1.57% annually. That forecast contrasts sharply with what has happened to actual growth in the past three years, in which it has averaged just 1%. For the coming 2026-27 financial year, the figure is now confirmed at 0.9%, far below the Treasury’s projection. That is what it will remain for the following two years, and the result is a £1.27 million annual disparity. The Government have been clear: the multi-year settlement is intended to provide greater certainty for local authorities to take sustainable long-term decisions. The Treasury’s 4.1% uplift for Dorset and Wiltshire is welcome. The service is not asking for special treatment; the request is that the means are available to achieve the funding uplift on the ground, not just in an optimistic Treasury model.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

I am grateful to my constituency neighbour for allowing me to intervene. He will know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen), who is concerned about Wilton, has written to the Minister to request a meeting. I did the same at Prime Minister’s questions yesterday. I very much look forward to that meeting—

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Murrison]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the issue is easy to resolve? The conundrum we are in is based on the Treasury assessment that he described, which was over-optimistic through nobody’s particular fault, but we can remedy it simply by allowing some flexibility in the precept. That would deal with the issue facing our wonderful fire and rescue service. I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to those wonderful people, particularly the volunteers, who freely give their time to keep our constituents safe.

[Brian Mathew]

I thank the right hon. Member for his comments; in fact, I will go into some details on that now. Members from all parties will recognise that rural fire services face different cost pressures compared with urban ones, and rurality is not adequately addressed in the current or previous funding formulae. We must continue that debate but, in the face of closures this summer, an urgent solution is required to safeguard our community fire services.

If the Government are not prepared to review their central funding, the only options on the table, when the Treasury’s assumptions are proven incorrect, are station closures, or additional precept flexibility for the 2027-28 financial year to address short-term funding pressures through local rather than additional central Government funding. Dorset and Wiltshire’s current precept is below the national average for stand-alone services, and a one-off correction would bridge the funding gap while keeping the precept in line with that of neighbouring services. In the consultation on closures, residents have been asked whether they are willing to pay a little more for their fire and rescue services. I urge the Minister to study their responses and act on them.

I can find no recent precedent for such a large number of fire stations being closed in one year, and with them the loss of so many frontline jobs. Once a station is closed and its site sold, there is very little chance it will be reinstated. The hit to emergency response times and community resilience is essentially irreversible.

For the average household, the fire precept amounts to less than £100 per year or £1.85 per week. For that amount, we receive what is arguably the most important insurance policy any of us can have: a well funded, well staffed and well-trained fire and rescue service, ready to respond when the worst happens. All eight stations are staffed by on-call firefighters—individuals who put their communities first and who are ready to pause their job and family life at a moment’s notice, putting themselves at risk to keep us safe.

To my mind, the question is simple. The Minister can do nothing, and the stations that have served our towns and villages for decades will close, or, by allowing some adjustments and giving the authority the opportunity to raise the funding that the Government say the Dorset and Wiltshire fire service should get via the precept, the stations will remain open, providing the emergency response, civil resilience and capacity that our communities will need in the years to come.

Oral Answers to Questions

Brian Mathew Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

In my opening answer, I referenced the consultation we intend to launch soon relating to protections for residential freeholders from that type of charge, where it is unreasonable. Those provisions in the 2024 Act provide for greater transparency. They allow homeowners on freehold estates to take the estate manager to the first-tier tribunal if unreasonable rent charges are being levied. The hon. Lady and her constituents will have a chance to feed into that consultation very soon.

[Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)]

16. What steps he is taking with Cabinet colleagues to ensure that new housing developments are adequately flood-resilient.

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

The national planning policy framework sets out a sequential approach to flood risk management, requiring inappropriate development to be directed away from areas at highest risk and providing strong safeguards where development is necessary in these areas. The updates to the framework made in December last year expanded the requirement for development to provide sustainable drainage systems. Statutory guidance accompanying building regulations promotes flood-resilient buildings in flood-prone areas through approved document C.

[Brian Mathew]

Over the past week, I am sure many of us have seen and felt the proof that our weather is becoming more extreme. That is why it is ever more important to be proactive and forward-thinking in our housing strategy. Does the Minister agree that sites that flood frequently, such as the old golf course in Bradford-on-Avon in my constituency of Melksham and Devizes, should not be included in local plans and not be called upon for development?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I would say a number of things to the hon. Gentleman. First, local plans are tested for their soundness by the Planning Inspectorate. He will appreciate that I cannot comment on individual sites, but I again draw the attention of the House to the strong protections in national planning policy which mean that development that could be vulnerable to flooding should not be allowed in areas of high flood risk.

Neighbourhood Plans: Planning Decisions

Brian Mathew Excerpts

Wednesday 9th July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I thank the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) for securing this valuable debate.

Let me take you, Ms McVey, and the Minister to my constituency of Melksham and Devizes, in the beautiful county of Wiltshire, where many villages have worked to develop neighbourhood plans over the years. The plans have allowed for good consultation with communities over what developments they want to see and where. For the most part, they have worked—when not disrupted by the lack of housing supply from the previous Conservative Administration.

The village of Holt is a perfect example of what can be done when local people have the tools to shape their future. A parish councillor in Holt recently reminded me of the success of Holt’s first neighbourhood plan, which was created in 2016. That plan shaped the development of a derelict tannery site into an award-winning mixed-use development that combines homes and commercial space while preserving the village’s distinctive character and history.

Nearly a decade on, Holt is now updating its plan to address residents’ current concerns, such as traffic, road safety and local infrastructure. As the councillor put it to me:

“The neighbourhood plan process is a part of local democracy.”

She is right. It empowers communities, gives residents a unified voice and ensures that developments do not just reflect the needs and priorities of developers.

The withdrawal of funding for neighbourhood plans means that we are heading towards a two-tier planning system. In one tier, more affluent areas, where the parish councils can afford to fund expensive plans, will continue to have a say in their futures. In the other tier, the less affluent areas that lack such resources will be left vulnerable to speculative development, with little say and even less resource.

[Wendy Morton]

On that point, some of us do not have parish councils, but the local voice in neighbourhood planning is still important. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this insistence on top-down targets is driving out any space for local communities and the local voice? That is deeply damaging if we want to create sustainable communities.

[Brian Mathew]

I agree entirely with the right hon. Member. I urge the Government to reconsider their decision. Local democracy should not be a luxury available only to those who can afford to pay for it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Norris]

The right hon. Lady will know, despite not having any parish councils, that the precept is a matter for local authorities. That is a decision that they will have to make. We recognise the concern on resourcing, and it will depend on the area. However, even though national structured support is ending, there is now expertise and know-how within the market for local groups to tap into, which should help to develop their ability. Hopefully, some of that combined support can help to lower costs.

[Brian Mathew]

As I tried to make out in my speech, the worry of a two-tier system, where some communities can afford a neighbourhood plan and others simply cannot, will be important. The only way out that I can think of would be a simplification of the neighbourhood planning process, which would allow communities to get on and do it themselves without the need for expensive consultants to be involved, as there is at the moment. Is something the Minister would consider?

[Alex Norris]

I cannot give the hon. Gentleman succour on that point, but I hope that I can offer something in lieu. I accept that these things can become complex, but sometimes things are complex because they are complex. I do not think that we can wish that away and simplify a process in way that would mean taking away the fundamentals that require complex organisation and preparation. I think he is speaking to a wider point that also came up in the debate: complex planning matters ought to be the purview of local plans. If local plans are done properly, a lot of that complexity and difficulty will fall out and leave space for neighbourhood plans to operate as designed, rather than having to backfill the failures of local authorities.

I could not help but get the sense from the contribution of the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth that a lot of the issues are due to the absence of a local plan in his community. The hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire talked about speculative development. The story, as he put it, in his part of the world seemed to be developing, but that is clearly a risk until the process is finished. I cannot help but think that the issue there is the same. Similarly, the point that the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) made about infrastructure falls within the purview of the local plan. We have to get the balance right.

I turn to local planning authorities, which have not been a feature of this debate, but have been a feature of the public debate. The end of funding for neighbourhood planning groups has created a misconception that our commitment to funding local planning authorities for their neighbourhood planning function will be affected. I want to be clear to anybody watching and to hon. Members in the Chamber that that is not the case. That again speaks to the point about the interrelationship between the local and neighbourhood planning functions. We will make announcements about the arrangements for this financial year in due course.

I turn to where neighbourhood plans sit in decision making, because I want to address the point made by the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne). It has never been the case that neighbourhood plans are determinative in every case, always. National policy is clear that an application contrary to an up-to-date neighbourhood plan should not usually be approved. I totally accept and understand the frustration that people would feel if they are approved, but we have to be honest: under the system as it stands—this does not result from any changes that we have made—when the balance of considerations in the case outweighs the neighbourhood plan, the development can take place. That is the world as it is today. In response to what the hon. Gentleman said, we are not planning to make changes to that. Again, the best thing that communities can do is have neighbourhood plans sitting underneath a local plan for their community.

Before I finish, I turn to the points that hon. Members made about local government reorganisation and the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 reforms. I hold the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) in very high regard, but I know that to be in his company is to expect a degree of impudence, so I was not surprised that he trumpeted provisions in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act that his Government did not turn on. There is no point in the powers being on the statute book if they are not turned on—that does not help—so I chafe a little at the characterisation that that is somehow our failure, rather than Conservatives’. Surely, they are at least equally complicit.

I want to give clarity to colleagues and those watching that no local government reorganisation will affect the status of neighbourhood plans; they will continue to have effect and will form part of the development plan for their area.

Churches and Religious Buildings: Communities

Brian Mathew Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I also thank the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) and the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) for leading the debate.

For over 20 years, the Government have run the listed places of worship grant scheme, which allows listed churches, chapels and other places of worship to reclaim VAT on the costs of repair. That grant scheme has been renewed every few years, and it needs to be renewed again in full if communities are to be allowed to keep what is often their heart and soul in good order, and in doing so, keep themselves healthy.

Any reduction in the scheme would be a disaster for listed places of worship. Nearly half of all grade I listed buildings in England are churches. Those buildings are largely run by volunteers who have to raise the funds needed for repairs. The ability to reclaim VAT on such works makes an enormous difference, particularly when the cost of all building work has increased substantially.

Historic churches are not only places of spiritual importance, but architectural and cultural landmarks. They offer a window into our past, reflecting the diversity of our communities and our shared history. They also do a tremendous amount to support local communities, often hosting or helping to run services such as food banks, youth clubs, and drug and addiction support, which contribute to health and social welfare across our country—from rural idylls to inner city neighbourhoods.

Without the scheme, many historically and architecturally significant buildings will quite simply face neglect, and even closure. That would not only have a severely negative effect on local communities, inevitably impacting the most deprived communities the most, but result in a loss of this hugely significant heritage. By continuing the listed places of worship grant scheme, the Government can ensure that those treasures are protected for future generations as places that promote beauty, education, community cohesion and tourism.

I have received 40 letters from 24 church communities in my constituency of Melksham and Devizes. Those churches are quintessential to what makes up the best of our nation; they should be celebrated, visited and utilised, because that is what they were built for in the first place.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

I thank all hon. Members for their co-operation and self-discipline. I now call the Front-Bench speakers, beginning with the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.