Oral Answers to Questions

Josh Newbury Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

We want to put in place a planning system that is geared towards meeting housing need in full. That is a clear difference between us and the Conservative party. In bringing forward its local plan and looking at development, every local area should look first at densification—that is, what it can do on brownfield land. It should only have to review green-belt land if it cannot meet the needs in that way or via cross-boundary strategic planning.

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

Last week, my local council announced the proposed closure of the much-loved Prince of Wales theatre in Cannock. Despite the council’s financial pressures, local people do not want that theatre to become collateral damage. Will the Minister meet me to see what could be done to explore community ownership and give our theatre the bright future that thousands of my constituents want to see?

[Alex Norris]

As my hon. Friend knows, I am very keen on community ownership, and I am sad to hear about the situation in his community. I would definitely steer him towards the “asset of community value” process in the immediate term, and of course, I would be very happy to meet him and campaigners on this issue.

Cross-Boundary Housing Developments

Josh Newbury Excerpts

Thursday 28th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) on securing this debate on an important but often overlooked issue. Having known him for many years before we took up our new roles, I can say with authority that his constituents will be well served in this House, particularly because they, like mine, are represented here by one of their local councillors. I too want to draw attention to the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which includes my ongoing unpaid role as a district councillor for my home village of Norton Canes.

As councillors, we know that cross-border developments can cause various complications, which I am sure are seldom considered when developments are brought forward. We all know that council boundaries do not always reflect local communities, and that is inevitable to some extent, with boundaries going down the middle of main roads, for example. It is not particularly logical or necessary, however, to have housing estates or even individual homes divided between different council areas.

I am a bit of a local government nerd, so I could give many examples from close to where I live and across my region, but I will spare the House that and focus on my constituency. On the north-east edge of Cannock Chase, we have a small estate nonsensically split between Brereton and Ravenhill, in my constituency, and Armitage with Handsacre in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson). This is reflected in council boundaries as well, so there is clearly an impact on our local services. However, a far bigger cross-border development is fast approaching in the form of the redevelopment of the huge former Rugeley power station site. When it was a 1,000 MW power station, nobody particularly knew or minded where the boundary was. My predecessor and the former Member for Lichfield would often joke about which of the cooling towers were in each of their patches. But once 2,300 homes, around 900 of which will be in Cannock Chase, have been built, this could become a major issue.

Rugeley already has several developments on its fringes, which are outside our boundary, including the Hawkesyard estate and Hathorn Grove. The vast majority of those new residents feel that they live in Rugeley and go into Rugeley for various services, yet their lower-tier local authority council tax goes to Lichfield district council. This means that any service that draws on district council resources is strained by an inconsistent council tax base. The same is true of parish and town council services.

This is not just about services that residents go out to use, but about the services that come to them at home—bin collections, for example. We also know that NHS commissioning decisions, for example on special educational needs and disabilities provision, are sometimes done on a district by district basis. The chronic lack of general practice capacity in Rugeley and Brereton will be a major issue for the new power station development unless our integrated care board acts quickly.

There can sometimes be a democratic deficit, as residents in those cross-border developments are split between different council areas and different parliamentary constituencies. Knowing who to contact about various local issues can be challenging enough as it is, without estates being bisected by boundaries that make no sense. Sometimes, those boundaries are tidied up through ward or constituency boundary reviews, but we know that the process of changing council boundaries can happen only at the request of both councils. Clearly there is no incentive for the council that benefits from council tax payers who do not tend to use its services to consent to a principal area boundary review. As the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire said, those councils have all the benefits and none of the drawbacks. That process can also be cumbersome, so it rarely happens, even when a small move in a boundary would be the logical thing to do. Given that our constituency boundaries are often based on council boundaries, such discrepancies are often not corrected for Westminster elections either.

I do not come here with any oven-ready solutions, although it does strike me that in other countries—Canada for example—local authorities can, with appropriate oversight, annex territory from others to prevent these cross-border challenges and inefficiencies from arising. I hope that the Government will consider how we can better address these challenges. Any solutions that we can come to will certainly greatly benefit community identity and local services.