Cross-Boundary Housing Developments

Peter Bedford Excerpts

Thursday 28th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)]

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I am a serving councillor in Leicestershire.

I am grateful for this opportunity to raise the challenges posed by cross-boundary planning applications, and I thank Barrie Gannon, a Markfield parish councillor who has campaigned for changes in this area.

My constituency is unique in many ways, but most pertinently to this debate, it is unique because it straddles three council boundaries: Blaby district council, Charnwood borough council, and Hinckley and Bosworth borough council. Generally, these councils work constructively alongside each other and with Leicestershire county council. However, one area of tension surrounds development, collaboration on local plans, and housing allocations within each council area.

It is clear to me, and to many of my constituents, that some of the councils are purposefully granting applications on the edge of their boundaries, which has a disproportionate impact on the neighbouring council. In essence, they are taking all of the benefits but none of the negatives.

I have secured the debate not because I am a nimby, but because I want to see a more collaborative approach from local planning authorities. As a Conservative MP, I fully support the notion of a property-owning democracy, particularly for those from the next generation, who find it increasingly difficult to get on the property ladder. However, the free-for-all approach offered by the current system is harming many of the beautiful villages in my Mid Leicestershire constituency. How can it be fair that borough, district and parish councils are able to democratically pass local plans, but adjacent boroughs can undermine them by allowing development on the edge of their boundaries?

I have seen many such examples in Mid Leicestershire. In Markfield, the challenges posed by cross-boundary planning applications have been raised with me many times by Councillors Claire Harris and Deborah Taylor, and local activist Dave Hyde, who lobby me regularly on the frustrations of cross-boundary anomalies.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate. One of the issues that clearly arises from what he refers to is the impact of development on GPs, education, roads and leisure infra- structure in adjoining constituencies or council areas. Houses may be built in one area but people in other areas will be affected. Does he agree with many hon. Members that there needs to be a co-ordinated plan, perhaps at a higher level, that brings future proposals together, so that when houses are built in one area, associated infrastructure is spread across all affected areas?

[Mr Bedford]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I will go on to address some of those points, particularly in relation to the use of infrastructure.

Markfield village sits in the local planning area of Hinckley and Bosworth borough council, but under the current framework, Markfield parish council and Hinckley and Bosworth borough council have very little say or influence over such decisions, as they are made in the adjacent Charnwood borough. It is obvious that the new Markfield residents will use services in Hinckley and Bosworth, Markfield and the surrounding areas, but those areas will see very little benefit, because those benefits will go to other villages. Worst of all, such developments are going ahead without constructive or binding input from the local parish council or the adjacent borough council.

Another example is in Glenfield village, in my constituency, which sits in Blaby district council, adjacent to Leicester city council. Steve Walters, who heads a local action group, has raised the issue that the city council plans to build several hundred homes on the edge of Glenfield village, but because the village does not sit within the city council boundary, it will see all the detriment of that development but have very little input in the decision-making process. Indeed, Steve has campaigned many times against the urban sprawl of the city affecting villages such as Glenfield. He is working constructively with me and local councillors to try to get progress on the issue.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

In my constituency of Horsham, we are almost entirely surrounded by other areas that, for one reason or another, have constrained housing targets—they have areas of outstanding natural beauty, are in national parks or are already built up. As a result, under the duty to co-operate, Horsham has to take a very unfair proportion of housing to serve the whole area. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the duty to co-operate system needs to be revised to stop freak results happening in constituencies such as mine?

[Mr Bedford]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. He gives an example in his constituency, but I have seen the same in Leicestershire and, from speaking to other hon. Members, I know there are similar examples in other constituencies.

So where are we heading? We have a Government that are steadfast in their plan to concrete over our green and pleasant land, especially in rural constituencies such as mine. In July, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government said that she believed the national planning policy framework

“offers extra stability to local authorities.”

Is that really the case?

The Government’s approach is to alleviate the pressure on housing in UK cities and force additional housing on rural areas, without providing sufficient support to the communities that will impact. That was seen by the Government’s plans to reduce housing targets for cities by an incredible 35% in the NPPF. In the village of Ratby in my constituency, predatory developers such as Lagan Homes are taking advantage of the current situation, forging ahead with proposals to bulldoze over The Burroughs, despite a staggering 900 households in that village writing to the borough council to oppose that ecological vandalism. I am sure Leicester city council was jumping for joy at the news that it would have to build 31% fewer homes by 2030, but that meant rural areas such as mine and my residents’ would have to see additional housing, as it is pushed further and further out.

In truth, the reduction is why the decision to build houses on the edge of Glenfield leaves such a sour taste in the mouths of local residents, particularly in Glenfield and Blaby district. What does it look like in context? The city council has been asked to produce fewer houses, whereas rural areas, such as Blaby and Hinckley and Bosworth, have been asked to dramatically increase their target, by 69% and 59%, respectively. Unfortunately, the planning reforms do not really take into account the cross-boundary implications, so what should we do instead?

The Government should foster a co-operative relationship from the top down. Our local authorities should be encouraged to work alongside one another to prevent situations such as those I have described. That can be done by allowing adjacent borough and district councils to have a say in housing development policies through their various local plans, particularly where that will have an impact on the neighbouring authority. There should also be an ability for residents in adjacent boroughs to view and comment on plans in other local planning authority areas. Furthermore, the increased arbitrary housing targets for each borough council area simply do not take into consideration the impact of the adjacent targets. There is surely a better method for developing sustainable housing county-wide, rather than local authorities parking houses next to their own front lawn.

Finally, and probably most importantly, under the current regime there is no requirement for financial compensation for local authorities that are adversely impacted. No thought is given to that. Section 106 agreements and community infrastructure levy contributions are paid by developers to local authorities to mitigate the impact of specific developments. They are well-intended negotiated agreements that force developers to give something back to the community, whether that be funding for infrastructure, improvements or green spaces. However, they fall short in cross-boundary considerations, as we have seen in the examples I have given from Markfield and Glenfield.

Charnwood borough council has made it explicitly clear that the section 106 moneys for the developments along the boundary of Hinckley and Bosworth would go to its own borough. How can spending all those allocations for a development on the edge of Markfield, to the benefit of Loughborough and Barrow, be in the interest of Markfield residents, who sit in a different borough? That undermines local buy-in to the planning process. Instead, there should be a more practical approach whereby section 106 agreements go to the authority where the services are actually being used. Another anomaly of cross-boundary development is the distribution of council tax precepts, with the new residents in Markfield, for example, paying into Charnwood borough council rather than their own.

I am not a nimby. I called this debate to raise the issue posed by cross-boundary planning applications. I believe there should be a collaborative, holistic approach, as mentioned by other hon. Members. I encourage the Government to listen to the debate and consider bringing about the changes and proposals that I have outlined.