Housing: North Staffordshire

Leigh Ingham Excerpts

Tuesday 9th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

It cannot be denied that we are in the worst housing crisis since world war two. I thank the Minister for his engagement; we have previously discussed this issue in relation to my constituency of Stafford, Eccleshall and the villages. We need housing, but the village of Loggerheads, right in the north of my constituency, has been left in chaos due to large-scale housing developments that were allowed under previous Administrations, but put forward and built without the proper supporting infrastructure. Does my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour agree that while we desperately need housing—particularly bungalows—it cannot be delivered in the Conservative way, where there are houses but no infrastructure, and residents are left in limbo?

[Dr Gardner]

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend’s points.

The land I mentioned also contains a large quarry full of valuable reserves of Etruria marl. A major concern of mine with new developments is the impact on transport infrastructure. Access roads in Lightwood are minimal: one connects to a route already beset by traffic and speeding, while the other country lanes cannot safely accommodate significant traffic.

I have seen that in villages throughout my constituency, where villages are cut in half by major roads but not given safe crossings and speed restrictions. In Tittensor, villagers have been campaigning for over 30 years for a crossing, and in Draycott in the Moors, a large development and an industrial estate brought promises of high-quality traffic management measures that were watered down to a final proposal that will be incredibly disruptive to residents.

Reform-led Staffordshire county council has not supported my attempts to deliver safer roads, and the separation of responsibility between National Highways and the planning authority makes it an exceptionally difficult issue to solve. I ask the Minister, when responsibilities sit between multiple authorities, how can we ensure that the wider impact of developments on surrounding roads is properly considered, with co-ordinated action to support affected communities?

On a similar note, within the village of Tean, developments have led to an increase in flooding and sewage outflow. Developers tend to meet their requirements to build suitable infrastructure and flood mitigations on site, but the problem occurs when the outflow from the estates hits the water company’s mains, which have often not been updated to cope with increased demand. We then see flooding throughout the village and sewage outflow killing our rivers and streams.

Although water companies are consulted, they often put the onus on the developer to address increased demand. As far as I understand, there is no statutory requirement on water companies—in my case, Severn Trent Water—to upgrade their infrastructure to meet new demand. Without that, I question whether consulting water companies is anything more than a tick-box exercise. I ask the Minister, what powers can we enact to ensure that new developments are supported by upgrading main sewer systems, the responsibility for which lies with the water companies to deliver at their cost?

Many of my Lightwood constituents are concerned that the draft local plan does not make sufficient use of brownfield land. I reassure them that Stoke-on-Trent city council is doing the most building on brownfield sites on record. In my time as a local councillor, I had many battles with developers and the local council over proposed developments. That is not to say that I do not support new housing, nor that I always support residents’ objections, but I am a fierce advocate of green spaces and a built environment that support health and wellbeing.

That applies equally to our urban areas, which also deserve green spaces; in the push for brownfield redevelopment, I do not wish to see our urban areas concreted over. Innovative thinking and the use of existing buildings is therefore welcome. I commend plans to improve urban centres with thoughtful developments, such as the Tams building in Longton, and to increase housing in our town centres, utilising empty buildings and the upper floors of shops.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will happily take that conversation up with colleagues in other Departments, and I am happy to write to my hon. Friend about heritage policy in the planning system more generally if he would find that useful.

The point needs to be made, and it needs to be made again and again, that there is not enough brownfield land on registers—and certainly not enough viable sites in the right locations—to meet the demand for homes across the country. That is why we have taken a different approach to the green belt. We are committed to preserving green belts, which have served England’s towns and cities well over recent decades, not least in checking the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas and preventing neighbourhoods from merging into one another. We have acted quickly to replace the haphazard approach taken by the previous Government to green-belt designation and release with a more strategic and targeted approach.

I emphasise that Ministers do not themselves determine what, if any, grey-belt land is released in any given local planning authority area. It is for the local planning authority itself to determine whether exceptional circumstances exist that justify doing so. In those instances, we expect it first to demonstrate that it has examined fully all other reasonable options for meeting identified need for development, including making as much use as possible of suitable brownfield sites and underutilised land, optimising the density of development—a number of local authorities across the country are looking again at brownfield sites and exploring whether they can get additional density to make up housing numbers—and working with neighbouring authorities to assess whether identified need might be sensibly accommodated across borough boundaries.

Where those options have been exhausted, we expect local authorities to look again at green-belt land release. National policy makes it clear that, in those circumstances, local development plans must take a sequential approach: first exhaust previously developed land, then consider low-quality grey-belt land that is not previously developed, and only then consider other green-belt locations. Under our revised approach, the sustainability of green-belt sites must also be prioritised, and local planning authorities must pay particular attention to transport connections when considering whether grey belt is sustainably located.

[Leigh Ingham]

The Minister and I discussed this issue just prior to the recess, particularly in relation to Eccleshall, where greenfield sites with really poor transport infrastructure, as well as poor sewage and water infrastructure, are being proposed for development. I gently remind him that we were going to meet this month or early next month to discuss that further. It would be great to have that meeting put in the diary as soon as possible.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am looking forward to that meeting. The relevant diary slots have moved around on several occasions, but I will ensure that it takes place in the very near future. We can discuss that and other issues.

Because we recognise the value that communities place on green-belt land, we have taken steps to ensure that any necessary development on it must deliver high levels of affordable housing; the provision of new green spaces, or improvements to existing green spaces, that are accessible to the public; and necessary improvements to local or national infrastructure. Our new golden rules, which are the mechanism by which we will deliver that public gain, will apply where a major housing development is proposed on green-belt land, released either through plan making or subject to a planning application.