New Towns

Tim Roca Excerpts

Thursday 15th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)]

In Macclesfield, one topic has dominated conversation for several months: the proposed new town at Adlington. It has been talked about on every street corner, in every coffee shop and at every parish meeting. Well, almost—for one glorious weekend, Adlington was briefly knocked off the top spot by the small matter of Macclesfield beating Crystal Palace in the FA cup. I am on dangerous ground, because I think the Minister was brought up in south London, so I will leave the football at that.

Jokes aside, this is an important debate, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) for securing it. I am not a nimby. I support house building and development, and I support the principle of new towns, done well, in the right places, with proper planning, and in the right manner with proper infrastructure. This country needs homes, especially genuinely affordable ones, and new towns have a proud history of delivering them, when they are carefully planned and sensibly located. I do not oppose that ambition; I welcome it. But supporting the principle of new towns does not mean signing a blank cheque for every proposed site, and it certainly does not mean abandoning the basics of good planning—which brings me to Adlington.

Adlington is not an empty space on the map. It is a small rural community of about 1,000 people, first recorded in the Domesday Book. It is a place shaped by continuity, with fields and farms; its working farmland is still producing food, supporting local jobs and sustaining wildlife. The proposal before Macclesfield would place up to 20,000 homes on 1,000 hectares of strategic green belt, wiping out 15 working farms, ancient hedgerows and bluebell woodlands, and fragmenting some of the most environmentally sensitive land in Cheshire. That matters, because the green belt is not an accident. It exists for a reason: to stop urban sprawl, protect countryside and make sure that we regenerate brownfield land. Once green belt on this scale is gone, it is gone forever.

I want to make a broader point about the new towns taskforce and its shortlist, because it is quite telling. Among all the sites recommended, Adlington stands out, not as the most suitable, but as the one that has faced the greatest opposition. That opposition has come not from one group, one parish or one campaign, but from across the community, across political lines and across civic society. I am grateful to the Minister for meeting me before Christmas to discuss those concerns. It is particularly striking that the Campaign to Protect Rural England, which has not opposed a number of the other new town sites recommended by the taskforce, has taken a clear and firm position against Adlington. When it singles out one site among many, it is because something genuinely does not stack up.

If that were not enough, Cheshire East council has voted unanimously against the proposal. That almost never happens in local government, and that alone should tell us that this is not a narrow ideological objection, but a considered judgment by the democratically elected planning authority for the area.

I want to talk a little more about Cheshire East, because it really matters. It is not a council that avoids building homes. It has met its housing targets consistently in the past, it has adopted a sound local plan, and it has delivered thousands of homes and continues to do so. It is not a planning authority that is dragging its feet or shirking its responsibilities. It is now preparing a new local plan, which will set out how housing need will be met in years ahead—transparently, democratically and with proper public engagement. That is how planning should work. The council has delivered before, and with its new plan it will deliver again—but without dropping 20,000 homes into the open countryside, against the opposition of local communities. Opposing the Adlington site does not mean opposing housing; it means respecting the plan-led system rather than bypassing it.

I mentioned brownfield land, and there are brownfield sites across Cheshire, Greater Manchester and the wider region that are crying out for regeneration, many of them close to jobs, transport, schools and services. Building there first is not anti-growth; it is sustainable planning. Indeed, there are alternative new town sites in the north-west that could be considered. Let us not jump straight into one of the most sensitive stretches of green belt in the region, next to a national park. Let us think again.

Powerful points have been made already this afternoon about infrastructure. Those concerns have not been convincingly addressed in the case of Adlington, which has limited rail services, constrained road capacity and utilities that were never designed to support a town 20 times its current size. Fixing that would take decades, not years, and there remains no clear answer about who would pay, who would deliver or when any of it would realistically be in place. That has been compounded by the way that we have gone about this. We need engagement with residents, but there has been only one engagement session with local residents by the company Belport. Communities have been left scrambling for information about the proposal. That is not how to build confidence in a major national project.

Before I finish, I want to thank local campaigners and activists—people who never expected to become planning experts, transport analysts or ecology specialists, but who have given up their evenings, weekends, and indeed savings, to engage constructively, responsibly and in good faith. They have not shouted from the sidelines; they have done the hard work of evidence, scrutiny and civic engagement. That is democracy at its best. They deserve recognition.

Let me be absolutely clear once more that this is not about saying no to development; it is about saying, “Not like this, and not here.” We should be building homes where infrastructure already exists, where growth can be absorbed sustainably, where local authorities are partners rather than bystanders, and where the environmental cost is justified by an overwhelming and proven need. Adlington does not meet that test.

I will end with a bit of history, because this House likes its history. In the Minister’s office hangs a picture of Clement Attlee, who I think is a hero to both of us. It was Attlee’s Government that created the green belt, precisely to protect landscapes like this from unchecked development. It was not anti-housing; it was pro-planning. It is about balance, foresight and stewardship. We owe it to that legacy and to future generations to show the same care now, so let us support new towns, let us build the homes our country needs, but let us also say calmly and clearly, in the Attlee spirit, that Adlington is the wrong place.

Proportional Representation: General Elections

Tim Roca Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)]

I thank those who secured this debate on a really important issue. I hope all of us here are committed to the fundamental principle that we should have a functioning, representative democracy; and that elections should reflect the will of the people, and endow this place with the democratic legitimacy to make laws and form Governments that govern the country in the best interests of the people.

Principles are tough, but we have to stick to them. I am conscious, as I argue in favour of proportional representation and electoral reform, that had there been a different system in the election last year, the natural consequence would have been more Members in the mould of the hon. Members for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice), and for Clacton (Nigel Farage). We have to take the rough with the smooth and accept that legitimacy is important, and that the will of the people should be reflected in the number of seats that parties secure in this place.

Members have very ably made the point that the system simply does not reflect the will of the people. At our most recent general election, 58% of people who voted ended up with an MP they did not vote for. Some 554 Members of this House were elected with less than 50% of the vote. The trajectory is that turnout is declining, and the legitimacy of this place will inevitably start to decline as well. Decades ago, parties used to need close to 50% of the vote to win a majority; last year, the Government secured 34% of the vote. It is possible that there will be Governments in the future who secure even less of the popular vote.

We have known that this system is failing for many, many years. It has been discussed historically a number of times—we had the Jenkins commission; there was a royal commission in 1910; and there was a Speaker’s Conference in 1917. In fact, the Representation of the People Act 1918 was where we got closest to reform. Not only did it secure votes for women, but the initial draft of the Bill legislated for an alternative vote in single-Member constituencies and PR in multi-Member constituencies. Of course, single-Member constituencies are relatively new; for the majority of the history of this place, we had multi-Member constituencies.

As Members can tell, I was looking back through the history of how PR has advanced, or not, in this place. I was very taken with an argument made by Herbert Fisher, a Liberal President of the Board of Education 100 years ago. He had a florid way of speaking, but I thought I would repeat his words:

“I see before me and around me prosperous and popular heroes of many a stricken electoral field, members who have entered into every home, subscribed to every fund, and by a thousand and one meritorious processes have acquired what is known as the ‘intimate touch’ with their constituencies. It is very natural that such hon. Members who have laboriously perfected themselves in the polite art of electoral intimacy should be unwilling to see any relaxation or change of system.”—[Official Report, 13 May 1918; Vol. 106, c. 66.]

It is natural, when we have been put in this place by a system, to be reluctant to change it. We need to be bold and make the case for electoral reform, even though the system we want to replace is the one that got us here.

Sadly, a century on, we have made very little progress. I am glad that the debate is being held today, and I endorse the arguments made for a national commission. We are so behind other countries in this respect. It has been pointed out that we are in the minority of democratic countries in having a first-past-the-post system—130 other democracies use PR or a mixed-Member system. I hope that through this debate and the hard work of Members who continually raise the issue and call for a commission, we can eventually put a proposal to the people of this country, so that they can ultimately make a decision. I was very taken by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin), who talked constructively about how we get to that point. I hope that the decision will be taken to adopt PR—the system that is, in the words of Churchill, when it comes to addressing

“constitutional injustice…incomparably the fairest, the most scientific and, on the whole… in the public interest”—[Official Report, 2 June 1931; Vol. 253, c. 102.]

City and Town Centres: Regeneration

Tim Roca Excerpts

Wednesday 16th October 2024 Westminster Hall

On resuming—

[Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) for calling this debate. It is incredibly important and she is proving herself a powerful advocate for her constituents.

One issue we contend with is the inheritance from the previous Government. In this area, like so many others, it is clear that they were a dismal failure. Over 14 long years, sometimes supported by our Liberal Democrat colleagues, 420,000 traditional retail jobs were lost and 10,000 retail stores closed their doors. Macclesfield has been no stranger to that. Residents know of the long depressing decline of “Mac” town centre, with empty shops along Mill Street.

My campaign office had to move because, under the parliamentary budget, we could not afford the rent and business rates. There is also a huge empty building where Marks and Spencer was, because out-of-town retail parks were approved, going over the heads of local councils and against the wishes of local councillors. Those are damaging the vitality of our town centres. We do have phenomenal businesses in Macclesfield, and we have the Treacle Market, which is famous in the region.

There is a debate as to whether a bid would be right for our town, but if we are serious about supporting our town centres, we need to reform business rates; we need greater devolution in Cheshire; we need to back Great British Energy to reduce energy costs for businesses; we need to deal with the issue of empty shops—I like the strategy idea mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North—we need to exploit housing opportunities, so that we have the right mix in our town centres; and we need to improve connectivity. In Macclesfield, we have seen a huge decline in bus links to our outlying villages, and we need to restore that.

I am therefore glad to see that the Government are moving on these issues. I will be backing local businesses in my constituency by using them, and, down here, by advocating for the tax, devolution and investment changes that they need to help revive our high streets and town centres.

[Martin Vickers (in the Chair)]

I call the Lib Dem spokesperson, Vikki Slade.