Local Transport: Planning Developments

Rebecca Paul Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) for securing this really important debate.

In my experience, nothing erodes public confidence in the planning system faster than development that is delivered with the promise of appropriate infrastructure that never materialises. People are often accepting and understanding of new homes being built if it is done in a thoughtful and considered way. What they are not willing to accept is development pushing local residents out of catchment areas for schools, it becoming impossible for them to see their GP, their homes starting to flood regularly, and no longer being able to get a seat on the train on the way to work. In my constituency, we face huge amounts of development with an absolutely ridiculous doubling of housing targets, all while London’s target comes down. Unfortunately, I see no signs of adequate investment in our local public transport to accompany this ludicrous target.

As Members will be aware, the Government’s draft revised national planning policy framework is heavily tilted towards encouraging development around stations. I understand the logic to that. If we want to reduce car dependency and create opportunity, we have to build near public transport. To maximise the use of existing infrastructure, we have to build in more urban areas that are already well connected. If we want to protect high-quality green belt, we have to densify close to existing settlements. Those are sensible propositions, but the NPPF is too broad brush and does not discern between those bits of land close to stations that fit with these objectives and those that do not.

Let us take Kingswood station in my constituency, for example. There is high-quality green-belt land nearby, yet the train service is far from ideal, there is no timetabled bus service and there are plentiful other brownfield sites and, indeed, greenfield sites that would be much better to build on first. I recognise the good intentions behind that change, and I support looking at land close to train stations first, but additional parameters are required to act as an appropriate filter to protect villages such as Kingswood. If the planning system is going to prioritise developments near stations above all other considerations, it must also be accompanied by extra investment and funding in transport capacity. If the infrastructure is not there or not credibly planned, the answer should be no. That approach would enable growth at genuinely suitable hubs while protecting small villages.

On Gatwick expansion, I am concerned that Gatwick airport has been given the green light to operate a second runway without sufficient thought being given to what that means for surrounding public transport. Reigate station sits on a busy community artery, yet the Department for Transport has said nothing about the impact that millions of extra passengers heading down to Gatwick will have on the line or the station.

The most transformational improvement for Reigate station would be achieved by extending its platform to allow additional and more efficient services. Back in 2020, a Network Rail scheme proposed the creation of a 12-car turnback platform to allow Thameslink trains to stop at the station and avoid the need for splitting and joining of trains at Redhill. I ask the Government to reconsider that project in the light of Gatwick expansion. Redhill is impacted, too, so I would be grateful if the Minister clarified what plans are in place for these stations and lines to meet the need for additional capacity and more frequent and reliable services. This is also a good opportunity to ensure that the facilities at those stations are fit for the 21st century and fully accessible, so that everyone can use them.

On the topic of accessibility, I would like to raise the plight of Earlswood station. It serves a growing area, and one that could come under even greater pressure if the planning system encourages heavier development around it, yet Earlswood’s infrastructure is already creaking. Things have got so bad that the underpass was recently badly flooded and had to be pumped out. People are literally taking their shoes and socks off to get the train, and those with buggies, older residents and disabled passengers are effectively blocked from travelling. I am pleased to see that Network Rail has now replaced the pumps to help to address the situation, but there is still more to do in the long run.

In closing, if the Government want public support for housing growth, they must improve support for public transport as well. Those two things must go hand in hand.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am grateful for that intervention.

In her speech, the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted said that many of the services from Berkhamsted to London were not on time, so I took the opportunity to look up the frequency of those services. I gently point out that people in my constituency would give their eye teeth for a service every 10 minutes and that level of connectivity—they only have to wait a couple more minutes and there is another train, and another one after that. However, I do not diminish her fundamental argument about transport infrastructure, the subject of the debate—you have rightly been generous, Sir Desmond, in letting us stretch that to other local infrastructure—if new populations are to be accepted by existing populations, infrastructure needs to expand at the same pace, and ideally in advance of the growth in population.

We have heard a number of good speeches; I commend the hon. Lady’s speech, but I will also highlight the two Conservative contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) made the important point that where we have an increased population, it is not only the roads, but the railway infrastructure, that suffer and need to be expanded. In her case, that is an extended station at Reigate. Her constituency also suffers a double whammy, with travel growth due to the nearby expansion of Gatwick airport.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) made a number of good points. With multiple developments on local transport infrastructure, each one is identified and dealt with in isolation, not considering the cumulative impacts. The argument goes that the road can stand another 500 or 1,200 units, and that might be the case but, when there are 20 cumulative applications, the infrastructure creaks. He made another good point, of which I have personal experience, about constituencies with multiple local authorities, where one local authority can make a planning decision that adversely affects residents in the authority next door.

In my case, the Liberal Democrat North Norfolk district council is planning a large increased settlement to North Walsham, totally ignoring the huge impact of traffic going through nearby Coltishall, where everyone is funnelled over a single bridge across the river. There is an ongoing fight, with one district council ignoring the needs of another. Surely we can do better than that.

The Government have also taken steps to alter housing targets, moving targets around the country. Those steps have not always been accompanied by consideration of the impact on local transport. A prominent example is the county of Dorset, where a significantly increased housing target is being imposed—top-down, as the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted said—yet one of the first acts of the Labour Government was to axe the improvements to the A303, the road that links Dorset to London and the south-east.

Currently, an eight-mile journey that should take only 10 minutes is regularly taking over an hour. The A303 is also the vital connection between the south-east and the south-west—areas where the Government’s targets will result in a significant increase in development, with more people, more cars and more congestion. That example demonstrates the disconnect between what local areas need when it comes to transport and what the Government are willing to deliver.

Even when plans have been developed and funding has been secured for key transport schemes, they are often hampered, and sometimes even cancelled due to—in my view—unreasonable and burdensome over-regulation. I need only look at my own constituency and the scheme for the Norwich western link road. The delivery of that scheme is vital to the residents of Norfolk and to the local economy. Traffic congestion, delays, and queues on small rural roads and through communities in my constituency have long been blighting the area to the west of Norwich. Detailed plans were drawn up for a new 3.9-mile dual carriageway, the last section needed to complete the orbital dual carriageway route around the city of Norwich.

Plans were developed over seven years with local consultation and £230 million in funding—achieved by me. It was classified as a high-value scheme by the Department for Transport’s criteria. Relying on that planned road, many thousands of new houses had been allocated to land north-east of Norwich. Natural England was consulted throughout that seven-year period; in fact, it was very much part of the team. Then, one week before the final planning application was made, and without any notice to the planning team, Natural England changed its approach to a nearby colony of bats and withdrew its support—not just for that scheme, but for any mitigation approach. That left £50 million of development costs, and local residents and businesses across Norfolk let down. They were not consulted and their views were not taken into consideration.

Despite the Prime Minister talking a good game when it came to organisations unreasonably blocking crucial infrastructure schemes for similar reasons—I pray in aid the bat tunnel—the Government did not step in to help. I am interested to hear from the Minister how the Government are planning to stop unelected quangos effectively vetoing democratic decisions.

That road may have hit the buffers, at least for the time being, but the associated housing allocations all remain and can be seen in Taverham—it is a very live issue in my constituency at the moment—and elsewhere. This is exactly what residents hate: the process taking over from the reality on the ground. The cart is put before the horse, and then it is going in one direction and cannot be stopped. There is no review. The anger that I suspect we all experience on the doorsteps when residents feel they are being ignored is very real.

In November last year, the Government published a rapid evidence report on the impacts of integrated land use and transport planning, which summarised evidence on how combining land use and transport planning affects travel. One of the first suggestions in the rapid evidence assessment for policy makers making land use and transport decisions was:

“Developing awareness of potential unintended consequences via short scoping studies ahead of major investments.”

It highlighted that that could

“enable mitigating action to be taken where appropriate.”

Anyone who examines the Government’s record over the past 18 months realises that they have an exceptional talent for not considering the consequences of their actions. Perhaps the Minister would like to feed that suggestion into the wider Government.

Let us also look at planning and development in areas with much better local transport provision than many of us currently enjoy. One might think that areas with more developed transport networks would be able to encourage significant planning and development without some of the issues that we have been debating. Utilising areas such as brownfield sites close to existing locations should be an important way to help with some of the planning challenges posed in rural areas including Norfolk.

In London, however, which has by far the best transport network in the country, and significantly subsidised transport services with buses, we have seen the London Mayor’s absolute failure to deliver housing. Just look at last year; what has happened is really shocking. In London last year there were just 5,891 housing starts. That is 94% below target and a 75% year-on-year decline—the steepest drop in the country, the lowest tally since records began almost 40 years ago, and the lowest figure for any major city in the developed world this century. What a record.

[Rebecca Paul]

It is important to flag that reducing the number of houses being built in London pushes people in London out into constituencies such as mine. The Government say, “We’re building more houses so that children and grandchildren can stay close to their families,” but what happens is that those in London move into other constituencies. Does my hon. Friend agree that that does not really achieve the aim?

[Jerome Mayhew]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The failure of the London Mayor is putting pressure on her constituency and many other communities in the wider orbit of London.

The Government will say they are trying to take action to integrate these elements and to ensure that planning development does not negatively impact local transport, but in trying to deliver their targets on development, they should stop and consider the steps they can take to make it easier to build infrastructure and support planning that actually delivers local infrastructure improvements, before new populations arise.

Airport Drop-off Charges

Rebecca Paul Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I thank the hon. Member for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi) for securing this important debate.

In many countries, a quick kiss and fly really is quick and really is free. At Amsterdam Schiphol, the kiss and ride drop-off is free. At Paris-Charles de Gaulle the first 10 minutes are free, and at Madrid-Barajas the express departures car park gives drivers 10 minutes free. Meanwhile, here in the UK we are normalising the idea that dropping off and saying a hurried goodbye at the airport comes with a bill. Bear with me here: kiss and fly? More like kiss and buy.

At Gatwick airport, which serves so many of my constituents in Reigate, Redhill, Banstead and our villages, the drop-off fee was hiked to £10 for 10 minutes—a 43% jump from £7. That hits everyone: the parent, the friend taking someone to an early flight and taxi drivers trying to earn their living. It is true that Gatwick offers free drop-off in the long-stay car park with a complementary shuttle, and that blue badge holders are exempt, but we all know that that option adds time and complication, and is not always practical at unsocial hours.

We should be clear about responsibility. Most airports in the UK are private businesses, and drop-off charging is a matter for the owners to decide and manage. That is certainly true at Gatwick, where the increased drop-off charge has been explained on the grounds of growing financial pressure on the operation. However, the extra costs place a burden on my constituents using the airport, and I urge Gatwick always to keep them in mind when analysing the numbers and ensure fairness, the importance of which the hon. Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon) eloquently highlighted. It is easy to assume that people can use the train or bus as an alternative, but that is often not the case for the elderly, the disabled or those who simply cannot transport all their luggage by hand.

Gatwick has said that the drop-off charge increase has not been taken lightly and follows a number of cost increases, including a more than doubling of its business rates by this Government, from £40 million to more than £80 million per annum. It is relevant to note that Heathrow has also increased its drop-off charge this month, although far more modestly, from £6 to £7. Unfortunately, that is what happens when the Government pile ever more taxes on our businesses: those costs inevitably find their way back to the consumer in some shape or form. If Ministers would like to see the trend of extra charges and surging prices reduce, I say gently that they might consider not continually taxing businesses. Rethinking the damaging business rates hike would be a good start and would give British businesses, including our airports, room to breathe.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rebecca Paul Excerpts

Thursday 15th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)]

9. What recent discussions she has had with local authorities on pavement parking regulations.

[Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)]

12. When she plans to respond to the consultation entitled “Pavement parking: options for change”, published on 31 August 2020.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)]

This Government are committed to publishing a formal response to the consultation and announcing the next steps for pavement parking as soon as possible. We are currently considering the consultation outcome, including the views of many local authorities, and the options for tackling this nuisance.

[Lilian Greenwood]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s question. The previous Government failed to act and, like her, I am determined to tackle pavement parking. That is why I have met representatives of Guide Dogs, Living Streets, Sustrans and Transport for All to discuss this very important issue, which is absolutely fundamental to the safety and accessibility of our public realm. I can assure my hon. Friend that I am on the case, and I look forward to setting out the way forward very soon.

[Rebecca Paul]

I thank the Minister for her response, and I am really pleased to see that she is committed to addressing pavement parking. It is absolutely essential that it is addressed for my constituents in Redhill, where it is a real problem. As the Minister will know, Guide Dogs has been running a campaign for many years on addressing pavement parking, given the impact it has on those who are visually impaired. Given the Minister’s enthusiasm for solving this problem, can she please give us an idea of the timescale for delivering a solution—not the recommendations, but a solution—so that those with visual impairments and my constituents can navigate pavements safely?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I thank the hon. Lady for her support in acting to tackle what is a nuisance not just for disabled people, but for children walking on the pavement and for parents pushing buggies and prams. It is really important that we get this right. I am working speedily with my officials to do so, and I look forward to being able to announce the outcome of the consultation and our next steps shortly.