Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Martin Wrigley and Gideon Amos

Report stage
Monday 9th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Gideon Amos]

The hon. Gentleman leads me on to the next part of my speech. Our amendment 15, which would support the delivery of 150,000 new social homes per year, would be funded by the taxation proposal set out in our costed manifesto. That would provide an extra £6 billion per year, on top of the existing affordable housing programme and section 106 contributions. According to the Centre for Economics and Business Research, that would be enough to enable us to deliver 150,000 social homes per year by the end of the Parliament.

On the rights of communities, more people engage with their local councils on planning than on almost any other area, but far too often that engagement becomes a dawning recognition that all the key powers and levers on planning have been taken away from local areas by successive Governments, leaving local communities and the elected councillors who represent them increasingly powerless over the development that takes place around them. Housing numbers are set by a formula made in Whitehall and dictated not by population, but by demand and supply ratios, even though studies show that that has never yet reduced the price of a single house. Private builders will quite reasonably act to sustain the price of their product, and adding consents in this context is only likely to unleash development in inappropriate areas.

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that we saw in the recent Westminster Hall debate that the standard method for calculating the number of homes not only does not reduce prices, but inevitably ratchets them up and increases them?

[Gideon Amos]

My hon. Friend is very perceptive and hard-working on this issue. He raises a significant problem with the current standard method, and I pay tribute to him.

It is not just the standard method that is dictated from Whitehall; so too are rules on second homes and short-term lets, so communities cannot stem the loss of family homes for local people—something that our new clause 20 would put right. Rules on transport and highway capacity are also set by Whitehall, so local authorities such as my own Cheddon Fitzpaine parish council cannot question them. In the battle between underfunded local authorities and developers with big profits to make, Whitehall rules also mean that commitments to deliver affordable housing and infrastructure can all too often be evaded on grounds of viability—something that our new clause 112 would tackle by requiring an absolute minimum of 20% social housing in any development.

No wonder trust in local politics is at such a low. That has only been made worse by the chaos of the previous Conservative Government: with one rule for them and another for everyone else, basic fairness went out the window. The UK may rightly be ranked among the top 20 countries in the world by Transparency International, but nothing undermines fairness more than foul play, even if it is, as we know, very rare. Our new clause 11 would ensure that never again can Ministers favour a planning application from a donor without that being exposed in the public record. It cannot ever be right for a planning decision to be taken by those who will financially benefit from it.

Trust in the fairness of local democracy is so often shaped by how much trust people have in the local planning processes. Our amendment 1 would remove from this Bill the powers it gives Whitehall to control the running of councils, and the rights of councillors to make decisions on planning applications. The powers in this Bill mean that, for the first time, even a unanimous decision by every single councillor will not be enough to enable them to change a decision that their officers or planning consultants made on their behalf. Giving employees and consultants power over the heads of the elected representatives who employ them is a dangerous step, and no Parliament should endorse it.

It is not just elected councillors who will lose their vote on planning. Members of this House will lose their vote when it comes to changes to national policy statements that set the rules for the largest national infrastructure projects, from Hinkley C and Swansea tidal lagoon to the world’s biggest offshore and onshore wind and solar farms. Our amendment 128 would allow the Government to change national policy statements to reflect changes in the law, but it would preserve this House’s right to decide whether national policy on massive projects should be changed.

Residential Estate Management Companies

Debate between Martin Wrigley and Gideon Amos

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stuart. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) on securing a debate on residential estate management companies—an important issue for many of us up and down the country, and many of our constituents.

My hon. Friend has done a service both to her constituents and to people across the country by exposing, and placing on the record, the scandal of poor management companies. I do not want to denigrate companies that do a good job for the common areas and spaces that they are contracted to look after, but, as we have heard today, Members of Parliament too often hear how far too many companies are fleecing residents, charging rip-off prices and failing to respond to reasonable requests for repairs, information or accounts of how residents’ money is being spent.

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

In the town of Teignmouth in my constituency of Newton Abbot, FirstPort has been buying up other management companies, and the sinking funds—the contingency paid by residents—appear to have disappeared: they have been sunk. Does my hon. Friend agree that that should be looked into?

[Gideon Amos]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend, who is doing a great service to his constituents by exposing that problem.

In too many constituencies, residents are plagued by rogue developers who provide housing under a freehold tenure, but force residents to accept the estate managers or shared owners of public spaces within the developments. We have heard shocking examples from all over the country, which surely demonstrate the scale of the problem and the need to act. In one block of flats in my constituency of Taunton and Wellington, people have been unable to get repairs for a leaking roof from the owner of a building in Corporation Street—it has been leaking for nine years without being attended to.

Local Post Offices

Debate between Martin Wrigley and Gideon Amos

Thursday 30th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Gideon Amos]

Indeed. I think the hon. Member had read the next sentence of my speech, which was about the post office branch housed in WHSmith on Fore Street in Taunton. That business is potentially up for sale, which poses risks. The loss of such post offices would leave a huge gap across the country, particularly in county towns like Taunton. In the course of his work, will the Minister get concrete assurances from WHSmith that post offices in its stores will be retained following the sale? It is important that the Government get assurances from WHSmith on that point.

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. The distinction between Crown post offices and franchised post offices cannot be drawn heavily enough. In my constituency, we lost Crown post offices in Newton Abbot and in Dawlish, and the one in Teignmouth—which I believe is the last in my constituency; all the rest are franchises—is now under threat. Does he agree that the franchise system can provide a useful service but is absolutely no substitute for the full Crown post office service, which must remain?

[Gideon Amos]

I agree. I am sure that the Government will say in due course that, whatever its exact business model, a viable post office is what matters, and there would be some truth in that, but a secure post office, established for the long term, is what really matters.

The worries we hear from across the House and the country are not without foundation. We have seen worrying closures across the country. Notably, as has been mentioned, there was a recent consultation on the closure of 150 post offices. The loss of branches means that fewer communities can access vital services. House of Commons data shows that the number of post offices is rising overall, but in the south-west, which has lost more post offices than any other region in England, it is falling.

Wellington in my constituency lost its post office in 2019, and we can see the damage caused by that loss. Wellington is not a small town; it has 15,000 residents and is growing fast. Its population has grown by a third over the past two decades according to census data, and around 1,500 new homes have been built there in recent years. It also has a proud history as the home of Fox Brothers & Co, which has been manufacturing the finest flannels and fabrics for over 250 years and also owned its own bank—the Fox bank on Fore Street was the last bank in the country to issue its own banknotes. It is unacceptable for such a town to have no main post office. Losing the post office in 2019 has been a real blow. One constituent told me that he finds it

“totally baffling why Wellington Post Office was ever closed”.

It is particularly difficult for those without access to a car to visit the nearest alternative at Rockwell Green, a village several miles away. If they do, residents often find that the sub-post office is oversubscribed, with queues out the door. As a small village post office, it was only intended to provide for small numbers, and when it is open, parking has become a bit of a nightmare.