Local Transport: Planning Developments

Steff Aquarone Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship again, Sir Desmond. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) on securing such an important debate; she has made a number of salient points that I wholeheartedly agree with, in particular about the impact of losing local voices in the planning process.

As Liberal Democrats, we believe the Government should be doing things with people, not to them. Their planning reforms are another example of where we could gain the confidence of far more people in planning decisions if they were properly involved and consulted. I was pleased to hear the excellent speeches of my hon. Friends: my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) talked about housing growth pressure; my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) reminded us of the importance of doing the right things in the right order; my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) spoke about the importance of money; and my hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo) spoke about getting the balance right between different types of transport.

Most reasonable people would think that decisions about transport and planning should go hand in hand. Planning decisions lead to transport requirements and transport provision will inform planning decisions. However, like so much of the creaking and archaic machinery of the state, the predetermined silos for those two areas sit separately and often work in conflict rather than in harmony. What people want is for decisions to be made with a focus on them. How do we best plan infrastructure and transport to support people?

Even within transport, there are silos within silos. The different modes of transport and transport integration are not considered together, despite how interconnected they are. Those levels of bureaucracy and failure to deliver a working transport system are not what people want. They just want decisions to be made that help to get them where they want to go, when they want to go. If that is really beyond the ability of the state, we should all despair. Talking about alterations to the machinery of government might sound like wonkery, but in cases such as these it is clear to see where making the state work better would make our constituents’ lives better, too.

Rarely am I desperate to give credit to the planning system, but it does succeed in taking a more holistic view of transport into consideration when making decisions. It can assess the needs and uses of a wide range of transport modes. It understands the interplay between housing, employment and transport, and it thinks about where people are going and when, and what steps might need to be necessary to improve their experiences.

However, the planning system has little real power to actually make changes. The closest it can get is by creating a sizeable enough housing demand and hoping that the transport decision makers notice and deliver the necessary improvements. That means that many people end up in disconnected new estates or working in employment areas without any real accessibility other than by private car. There is a fundamental lack of an overarching strategy for too many of these decisions— and that could make the experience of people living in newly built areas and those seeing change in the ones they already live in immensely better.

For Norfolk, I believe a key way for us to secure that strategy was through devolution, which I have been trying to deliver since my first county council campaign kicked off nearly a decade ago. Devolving transport powers to local areas means that decisions on wide-ranging strategy and aims can be made closer to the people they impact, with real local buy-in. The promise of seeing those powers in Norfolk made me feel that we might finally crack the rural transport problems that have held our area back for too long. Instead, we have seen a double whammy of let-downs on that front in recent months.

First, the Labour Government pushed our mayoral election down the line to 2028, meaning more years without the power to deliver the change that my residents need now. Secondly, in the past week we have seen the Conservative leader of Norfolk county council launch a titanic tantrum over local elections and refuse to work with the Government on any further devolution discussions. Because she felt jilted by the Government, she has abandoned the opportunity for progress and money to pursue a personal vendetta against the Secretary of State, calling him things that I frankly cannot repeat in this Chamber. I have strong disagreements with the devolution process, but I want to put Norfolk first, not the ego of someone who is supposed to be a local leader. She tried to throw Norfolk under the bus—although, without any transport powers, it is unlikely that one would show up.

To go back to the matter in hand, there are improvements that we Liberal Democrats want to deliver and could deliver at local and national levels. We want to see more buses with more people on them, and these need to work out alongside the planning of new developments. For young students and workers, we have proposed a bus fare discount, enabling easier access to work and education or just getting to socialise with friends. We want to expand walking and cycling access with a boost to budgets and a drive to create more active travel routes that get people out of cars and on to paths where possible. On our railways, we want to make the commuter experience better, back passengers with a new passenger’s charter and give people the confidence to move their journeys on to public transport.

Now that the local elections are back on in Norfolk, I am sure many of my Liberal Democrat colleagues will find themselves at some point over the next few weeks lost inside a rabbit-warren estate with a dodgy phone signal and a bunch of undelivered leaflets, asking themselves the key question: was this place designed for people to live or for cars to drive? We have to make transport and planning work more cohesively, because they deliver tangible benefits to our constituents’ lives and could do so quickly. The Government can and must do more to restore faith in the planning and transport systems so that all our residents reap the benefits.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, as always, Sir Desmond.

I thank the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) for securing this debate and thank Members for all their comments and contributions. I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss how planning developments impact on local transport, a subject of great importance and a priority in the context of our housing ambitions. An awful lot has been said today; Members will forgive my aversion to taking many interventions, as I think it is important that I respond to many of the comments made.

Aligning housing and transport is essential for delivering homes that are connected and sustainable and that provide genuine choices for people. To that end, we have prioritised making changes to the planning system in support of growth and place-making. That includes providing the tools that local planning authorities need to ensure that developments are supported by the right transport infrastructure for the local context.

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government is currently consulting on revisions to the national planning policy framework. If progressed, these revisions will deliver better located development with more sustainable travel choices, supported by robust guidance.

We have already made changes through the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 to streamline the planning process for nationally significant infrastructure projects, which will speed up the pace of decision making on critical projects. The Act also places a duty on combined authorities, combined county authorities, upper tier county councils and unitary authorities to prepare spatial development strategies, which is an important opportunity to set the context for local plans, which will have to be in general conformity with the strategy once it has been adopted. Taken together, these changes will make a real difference to the people we all serve, delivering more housing, greater transport choices and better designed, healthier places.

The Government believe that an integrated, affordable and sustainable transport network is vital to unlocking homes with good access to jobs, education and public services. That includes improving bus services, boosting passenger numbers and giving local leaders greater control.

To support that work, last year my Department launched the connectivity tool, which brings together transport and land use data to show how well locations are connected to jobs and key services, helping communities to identify infrastructure gaps and plan development sustainably. The tool is already being used across the country to ensure that new housing aligns with existing and planned infrastructure. I believe the tool will empower local government, developers and planners to make better decisions about where development should happen, and to plan for the infrastructure needed to support it.

In parallel, the Railways Bill will establish Great British Railways as a directing mind. One of its objectives is to facilitate homebuilding and place-making. Great British Railways will be outward-facing and will work in partnership with mayoral strategic authorities, enabling a greater focus on local priorities such as housing and regeneration.

We have already taken action. Platform4, a company launched in November 2025, is already working to develop disused brownfield land—real land—with an ambition to deliver 40,000 homes over the coming decade. That will support our housing, regeneration and growth ambitions by creating new places to live, work, learn and play, putting the railway at the heart of our neighbourhoods.

The hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted also mentioned green-belt policy and its implications for villages such as Redbourn. As I understand it, the proposed changes to the definition of grey belt seek to better enable the identification of grey-belt land when ensuring protection of the green belt. Alongside that, the introduction of the spatial development strategies will identify broad locations for housing growth across larger geographies than the district level, while at the same time co-ordinating the provision of strategic infrastructure and improving the environment and climate resilience. That will help to better distribute developments and identify their appropriate scale in places like Hertfordshire. In reference to major developments in the surrounding areas, all planning decisions are taken on a case-by-case basis, based on national and local planning policies and other material considerations.

The Government approved the special development order for the Universal Studios site in December 2025, noting the project’s national significance. Extensive transport works to support the surrounding network are to be delivered, including the expansion of Wixams railway station to enable public transport journeys to the site.

Given the ongoing legal proceedings, there is not much I can say about Luton airport. However, the Secretary of State for Transport’s decision letter on the case sets out her reasoning for that consent.

Regarding the cumulative impacts of developments, the Government are operationalising a new approach to transport planning through changes to the national planning policy framework. By taking a vision-led approach to transport planning that sets clear outcomes from the outset of the planning process, we can deliver well-connected communities that are served by sustainable transport and co-located with key services, breaking the cycle that has left people with a lack of transport choice and ever more congested road networks. I believe that will make it easier for new developments to deliver the transport options that people need and want and will help decision makers to better manage the cumulative impacts of significant developments affecting places such as Redbourn.

To respond to the specific concerns about congestion, National Highways is a statutory consultee on planning applications and will assess the impact of new developments on the strategic road network. National Highways expects developers to explore all options to reduce dependence on the strategic road network for local journeys. National Highways is empowered to recommend refusal of planning applications that would cause substantial impact on the road network, including issuing holding responses to enable more evidence to be provided, or to provide conditions for mitigating the impact of development.

To pick up on a few other points that Members raised, I understand that the local plan in St Albans is currently being replaced. It is one of the oldest and most out-of-date plans. I recognise that it has been inherited—it dates back to 1994. It is expected that a new plan will be adopted in March. The Government’s proposed national policy framework outlines that all development proposals should be capable of proceeding without having a severe adverse impact on transport networks in terms of capacity and congestion, including the cumulative impact. Local decision makers should consider the cumulative impact on transport when deciding their planning applications.

On rail or rail operators that are required to plan services based on demand and value for money, Great British Railways will have a significant impact, as I have mentioned. Govia Thameslink Railway has shared demand modelling with the Department, which does include projections for planned development along the Thameslink network. The Department requires all operators to plan future timetables that reflect expected demand and provide value for money for the taxpayer. We will continue to work with Govia Thameslink Railway as it develops its proposals for development along that route.

On bus funding, I am sure all Members will welcome the £3 billion of multi-year funding that is going to support bus services across the country. Hertfordshire county council will be allocated £34.1 million under the local authority bus grant from 2026-27 to 2028-29. That is in addition to the £12.2 million already allocated. For the first time, the formula includes a rurality aspect to make sure that rural areas receive their fair share.

Moving on to the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), I find it hard to accept some of his comments. We inherited a housing crisis caused by the Conservatives that has seen house building plummet. The Government will not shy away from taking the decisive action needed to fix that for good. This Government are turning the tide on the Tories’ housing crisis, which has seen 1.3 million families stuck on housing waiting lists and over 165,000 children growing up in temporary accommodation. On affordable housing, our new £39 billion social and affordable housing programme will build around 300,000 new homes over 10 years, including at least 60% for social rent—around 180,000 homes. That is six times the number of social and affordable homes built in the last decade.

Today’s debate has demonstrated the importance of integrating transport and housing and seeing them not as separate systems, but as one. I trust that the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted can see how, taken together, those reforms represent the meaningful re-gearing of the transport and spatial planning systems to fix the housing crisis while delivering the transport that our communities need.

[Steff Aquarone]

On a point of order, Sir Desmond. I want to draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a serving county councillor.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)]

Thank you.