Local Government Reorganisation: Referendums

Peter Bedford Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2026 Westminster Hall

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential merits of referendums on local government re-organisation.

It is, as usual, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. Before I begin, I would like to ask the House a simple question: who truly understands the challenges and intricacies of local life in our constituencies? Is it civil servants sitting behind desks in Whitehall, or is it our constituents—the people who live, work and raise their families in the communities affected by local decisions? The obvious answer, as I hope the House will agree, is that our constituents know best, and yet we find ourselves in a situation where the Government appear determined to ignore those voices on local government reorganisation.

Since those plans were announced and rumours emerged of an extension to the city council boundary in Leicester, I have led a campaign against it. I have tabled amendments to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, asked questions on the Floor of the House and written to Ministers, and yet the response remains the same. The Government simply do not want to listen to the people who will be most affected by any local government reorganisation.

This is not to say that I am opposed to reforms. I recognise the potential benefits of consolidation: savings for the hard-pressed taxpayer, particularly at a time when this Government continue to raise taxes to unprecedented levels; and the possibility of more efficient public services. But any changes must be done with communities, not to communities. Residents must have a voice—a say in which neighbourhood plan they fall under, who runs their local services and, crucially, how much council tax they will be asked to pay. I do not want to predetermine what the Minister will say today, but if she decides against opening a discussion on the introduction of referendums, I will continue this campaign. I will be presenting a Bill to the House of Commons to give Members the opportunity to empower their residents with a final say on what local government reorganisation should look like in their areas.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

I completely agree with the principle of what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but we did not have that opportunity under the last Government when the Conservatives imposed local government reorganisation on places like North Yorkshire. Does he think that his party’s Government should have done the same too?

[Mr Bedford]

A lot can be learned from previous Governments of all different colours, and I ask the Minister to look at history and not repeat any mistakes that may have been made in the past.

Local identity, democratic consent and keeping council tax low are all at the forefront of my constituents’ concerns. First, there is growing concern throughout villages such as Glenfield, Leicester Forest East, Birstall and many more that if they are absorbed into the city council area, they will have development after development quite literally dumped on their green and beautiful spaces. These communities see their villages—currently served by Leicestershire county council—coming under increased pressure from the city council expansion.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Member for securing this debate. Having been elected as a councillor back in 1985—in those days, I had some hair—and served some 26 years on the council, there is a special place in my heart for local government and the real benefit of local councils making local decisions. Does he agree that accessibility to the council for the general public must be protected at every level, and the removal of access for people in towns and villages by centralisation can never be acceptable?

[Mr Bedford]

I absolutely agree: council services should be accessible to all. One of the concerns that my constituents have—particularly those in rural areas—is that if they are absorbed into a city unitary authority, they will have less access to be able to get their views and thoughts across. I share the sentiment that the hon. Member expressed.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

May I share with my hon. Friend a cautionary tale? Often, reorganisation is promoted as delivering better value for money, but since Christchurch was absorbed into the Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council area, the consequence has been less efficiency and higher costs, to the extent that BCP council is now applying for a 7.5% increase in council tax this year, without a referendum. The history of the Christchurch council area is that in a local referendum with a 60% turnout, 84% of people were against joining up with Bournemouth and Poole—and they were right. The trouble was that the Government then refused to listen to the views of the local people.

[Mr Bedford]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. As I said to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) earlier, this Government should reflect on the mistakes that previous Governments of different colours have made and ensure that the views of local people are always taken on board before any decisions are made, which was not the case in the example my hon. Friend just gave.

In my constituency, development is being pushed further and further outwards, right up to the boundaries. As a result, my constituents see local services being stretched. In Glenfield, for example, it is becoming increasingly clear that the city mayor in Leicester, who recently declared a climate emergency, is looking to build over the much-loved Western Park golf course, which is on the city-county boundary. Residents’ groups are currently able to lobby their local representatives, including me, to try to protect such spaces, but ultimately we all know that if Glenfield is incorporated within the city boundary, residents’ groups will have fewer and fewer avenues through which to defend the character of their community.

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his leadership on this issue. I am pleased that he is standing up for his community, which has not been listened to. In Surrey, local government reorganisation is being imposed on us; despite the fact that nine out of 11 boroughs and districts wanted three local councils, the Government imposed two. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that was a mistake?

[Mr Bedford]

As I said to the hon. Members who intervened earlier, this Government should definitely learn from the mistakes of previous Governments. That is particularly true in relation to the example the hon. Gentleman just gave of local government reform being introduced against the wishes of local people, resulting in an adverse impact on their local services and the community. I take his point and I hope that the Minister will listen to him, too.

I am not raising concerns today because I am a nimby—I fully accept that housing is needed—but we cannot allow a situation to develop whereby overbearing mayors, such as those in London, Birmingham or Leicester, are able to force their housing quotas on to the outer edges of their cities and gravely impact the lives of county communities.

Secondly, it is clear from the consternation of many people in my constituency that they do not wish to be ruled by a city mayor who has little chance of being removed. My communities in Anstey, Birstall and Leicester Forest East, and in many of the villages that border the city, fear being permanently outvoted by the urban-focused city electorate.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)]

I agree with every word the hon. Gentleman says; he speaks absolute common sense. An even better example is what has happened in Greater London, where the borough of Havering, which has always been in Essex, is being sucked into Greater London and paying huge sums of money to subsidise inner-London areas, but gets very few services in return. The Mayor of London is dictating to places such as Romford when it comes to building high-rise blocks in the town centre and imposing things such as the ultra low emission zone, as well as his crazy, woke political correctness, which I know most people in my constituency and in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency are completely opposed to.

[Mr Bedford]

The hon. Gentleman makes a passionate point about his constituency. I know that he has been working on this issue for many years and I hope the Minister will take heed of what he just said. I know he will continue to champion those causes.

My constituents have watched Leicester itself decline while the county continues to deliver. The previous Conservative administration at county hall presided over better education services, better roads and better social care—all at a fraction of the cost. Quite simply, my constituents do not want Leicester city, or its mayor, to drag them down. Is it any wonder that they ask, “Who in their right mind would want to be a part of an urban-focused Leicester city council?” Indeed, on the doorsteps many of my constituents tell me that they moved to the county precisely to escape the decline of the city. Frankly, I could not agree with them more: I made the same decision just over a decade ago. I believe in devolution, but expansion would leave county representatives outnumbered and overruled while city priorities, such as the climate crisis, take precedence over the needs of areas such as Mid Leicestershire.

Finally, and perhaps crucially, any reorganisation must be preceded by a referendum—

[Mr Forster]

As I highlighted, Surrey is being reorganised, partly because of the debt of the former administration in Woking, which is completely unaffordable for my local area, and Surrey council is concerned that it is going to have to pay that tab. How would a referendum work in that situation, where Woking wants reorganisation but none of the surrounding areas do?

[Mr Bedford]

I think all the residents who would be impacted by any changes should be consulted in a referendum. All the constituents who would be part of a potential new authority should be consulted as part of that referendum—that is how I see it working. Of course, there are different models, and the Government could explain and explore those models in any approach they introduce.

As I was saying, any reorganisation must be preceded by a referendum, because reorganisations directly determine local priorities and how much council tax our constituents will pay. If the boundaries are redrawn and my constituents are absorbed into a city council area, I believe they will face higher taxes for poorer services. Why on earth should we say to my constituents in villages such as Birstall, Anstey or Thurcaston, who are already dealing with the highest tax burden in a generation, that they will pay more for less—and without a say?

To conclude, at a time when trust in politics and in this place is at an all-time low, what better way is there for the Government to show that they are listening than letting ordinary people—the people who are impacted by such reorganisations—have the final say on how their local services are delivered? They should have the final decision on how changes are implemented.

[Esther McVey (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called to speak and that interventions should be short. We will come to the Front-Bench speeches just before 3.30 pm.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bedford]

I thank all Members from across the House for contributing to the debate. There is clearly passion across the House about our local areas and constituencies. Local decision making matters so much to our residents. I ask the Minister to reconsider the Government’s approach, particularly in the light of my point that local people should always have the final say on structural changes in their areas. That could be achieved by introducing local referenda. I reiterate my point to the Minister and ask the Government to reconsider their position.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the potential merits of referendums on local government reorganisation.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Peter Bedford Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

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

Let me begin with the title of the Bill; it claims, perhaps optimistically, to empower communities. By the end of this debate, we will see whether the Government truly intend to empower them. Community empowerment matters. I believe that my constituents and the councillors who represent them are far better placed to make informed decisions about their area than bureaucrats sitting in Whitehall. Every amendment I have tabled seeks to do one thing: empower communities. If Labour Members truly believe the Government’s rhetoric and intentions, I hope that they will support those amendments today.

I will focus primarily on my amendment to introduce a statutory requirement for referendums ahead of local government reorganisation, but before I do, let me briefly highlight my proposal on cross-boundary planning. New clause 33 seeks to fix a flaw in the planning system. My constituency straddles three local planning authorities. Too often, councils place the housing that they are required to allocate right on their boundary, knowing full well that the impact on services and infrastructure will fall primarily on a neighbouring authority that has little power to do anything about it.

Now, I am not a nimby. I recognise the need for better, affordable homes, but the system encourages siloed thinking. It enables councils to tick off the list their obligation to deliver housing stock, while residents living on the boundaries bear the brunt. Introducing joint planning committees for developments within specific distances of neighbouring authorities would at least bring about a dialogue that is currently absent. I ask the Minister to look at this anomaly in the planning system, so that local communities are better empowered over decisions in their area.

Amendments 104 to 106 offer the greatest opportunity to empower communities. We know that the Government will press ahead with local government reorganisation, and I understand the motives behind that; there is too much waste, and often there is duplication, and this would be one way of reducing it. But if the Government want to take people with them, including my constituents, residents must have the final say on their preferred reorganised boundaries through local referendums.

This is of real importance to the villages that I represent in Mid Leicestershire, where there is immense concern about being absorbed into the greater Leicester city council area. Residents in Birstall and Anstey have told me of their concerns that if reorganisation takes place and they are placed within Leicester city, they will face higher council tax. I thought that we in this place believed in the principle of no taxation without representation. Meanwhile, residents in Braunstone Town and Leicester Forest East are visibly and immensely concerned about the sad decline of Leicester city over the last few decades. After years of mismanagement, they have no desire whatsoever to see the Leicester city mayor have influence in their communities.

My constituents in Glenfield and Kirby Muxloe know exactly why the mayor wishes to extend his boundaries. After declaring a housing crisis, it is obvious that he would look at sites such as the old Weston Park golf course in Glenfield to meet the city’s housing stock requirements. The city mayor knows full well that this would place the burden squarely on the villages, not the city.

In conclusion, I commend the Government’s stated intention of empowering communities and reducing waste in local government. However, they should accept the amendments that I have tabled.

[Paul Holmes]

My hon. Friend is giving a characteristically excellent speech. Does he find strange, as I do, the disjointed attitude that the Government have on referendums? The Government are happy to keep referendums for local authorities that want to change their internal structures, but when it comes to their forced local government reorganisation, they will not allow local authorities to have referendums—despite previous Labour Governments committing to them. What does my hon. Friend think about that?

[Mr Bedford]

My constituents are very concerned about that. It is a strange anomaly. In addition, under the current legislation, councils are required to hold referendums when they wish to increase council tax beyond a certain level, so it seems very strange that the Government will not empower local communities to hold a referendum when local boundaries are to be redrawn. In conclusion, let us empower our communities to decide their own destinies.

[Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)]

I have to say, I had a great time on the Public Bill Committee. The Bill’s 400 pages were expertly navigated by the Minister, and our Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan), did an absolutely brilliant job. She unfortunately is not here today, but I should put on record how well she kept us in check as the Conservatives goaded us.

I must be cross-party in my thanks and say that I was very impressed with the hon. Members for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) and for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds). Their ability to string out the 10 seconds of what they needed say into about 10 minutes to keep the Bill going was exemplary, and we saw some of that today; the hon. Member for Hamble Valley was cut short by Madam Deputy Speaker.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Bedford Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jim McMahon]

We made available an additional £5 billion as part of the settlement, and £3.7 billion of that was for social care. We understand the pressures and we are directing money to address them, but we know that this issue will take more than one year to fix. We are on with the fair funding review—the third multi-year settlement in a decade—to begin to fix the foundations. We have definitely heard calls from rural communities and councils to take into account the additional cost for rurality and remoteness, and I assure the hon. Lady that those issues are being looked at.

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

One way of ensuring that new unitary authorities such as those for Leicestershire have adequate funding is to base that funding on robust business cases. Given that the Department was five weeks late in providing feedback to the local authorities, will the Minister commit to extending the deadline to ensure that those local authorities have the time that they need to build up those plans?

[Jim McMahon]

In all areas, there is more than adequate time to prepare final proposals. Councils in the devolution priority programme have until September, and all others—the majority—have until November. That is more than adequate time for councils to be able to marshal and get their plans together and make an assessment on that basis.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Peter Bedford Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 24th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My hon. Friend is right to spot that requirement, and we will certainly be considering that when we table amendments to the Bill. We believe it is completely inappropriate that certain groups should get preference over other groups in consultations that might occur during the planning process.

The ambition to build 1.5 million homes is all well and good, but the Government have not yet set out exactly how they will do that. There are many questions about its deliverability, certainly in the context of the February S&P Global UK construction purchasing managers’ index, which described one of the biggest monthly falls in house building and construction on record. Indeed, the joint report from Savills, the Home Builders Federation and the National Housing Federation said that the Secretary of State would fall short of her target by 500,000 homes. The Government have not yet set out how many social or affordable homes they will deliver, or what measures they will put in place to help first-time buyers on to the housing ladder, particularly when they have scrapped Help to Buy and the stamp duty discounts, which helped 1 million young people to buy their first home.

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that housing targets mean little if the Government do not get a grip on immigration, which is causing massive demand for housing?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that point. The increase in this country’s population is part of the reason why we have a rising need for housing, as well as for temporary accommodation. That all impacts on the system.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Bedford Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jim McMahon]

I thank my hon. Friend and the many other MPs with whom I have had meetings to talk about devolution—at the last tally, about 140 one-to-one meetings with MPs have taken place, such is the interest being shown in devolution for the right reasons. I am more than happy to continue those conversations and to welcome the local leadership being shown.

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

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Several Mid Leicestershire villages such as Glenfield, Birstall and Braunstone town are extremely anxious at the prospect of being forced into a large city unitary as a result of the English devolution Bill. Will the Minister agree to meet me to discuss this matter, and will he give my constituents the assurance that they will not be forced into a city unitary against their wishes?

[Jim McMahon]

It is important to say that any requests for local government reorganisation are proposed to Government by the local areas. It is for the Government to provide the process by which those applications are heard. Over at least the last four years, local authority elections have been postponed countless times to allow reorganisation to take place. To be clear, there is a bottom-up approach for both the postponement of elections and the boundaries that are drawn for the unitaries. Our job is to ensure that the process supports that approach.

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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Bedford Excerpts

Monday 2nd September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. It was great to visit Blackpool during the general election campaign, and I visited Blackpool on many occasions during my childhood as well. My Department is working in partnership with Blackpool to unlock significant investment. I have seen that more needs to be done to unleash Blackpool’s great potential, and I will work with my hon. Friend on the ongoing regeneration of Blackpool to deliver better-quality housing and a stronger local economy. And you never know, we might visit the nightlife as well.

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

Will the Secretary of State join me in calling on Labour-controlled Leicester city council to review its proposals in its own local plan to site 400 houses, seven Traveller pitches and a waste-processing centre on the edge of Glenfield village in my constituency, which are causing considerable concern to my residents?

[Matthew Pennycook]

We are not going to interfere in the discretion of local councils to make such decisions. What we are emphasising, as part of the NPPF consultation, is the importance of having a local plan in place. We have inherited a disastrous situation where only 31% of local authorities across the country have an up-to-date plan in place, and we need to do more to drive universal coverage. Local plans are the best way that local communities can shape development in their areas.