Water Supply and Housing Targets: West Kent

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

Tom Tugendhat will move the motion and the Minister will respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge and the Minister. I have had notice that one Member will intervene, which is fine. Unfortunately there will not be an opportunity, Tom, to wind up. That is the custom in these short debates.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered water supply and housing targets in west Kent.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John—not for the first time or, I certainly hope, the last. What is less pleasurable is having no water coming out of your taps. Sadly, that could be the reality for more than 13,000 new homes in Tonbridge and Malling if the Government get their way. Planning decisions in the community are, I think we would all agree, best left to local councillors. After all, it is right that those elected at the most local level have responsibility for shaping the place they live in and represent. However, this Government’s planning policies are taking us away from that principle.

Since the general election, we have seen mandatory housing targets reintroduced and increased enormously. They are up by 34% in Tonbridge and Malling and by 63% in Sevenoaks district. Then, of course, there is the grey-belt policy. I have been getting used to Green party and Labour MPs going through the voting Lobbies and making things easier for development to merge towns and villages and create one single, homogeneous, blended whole and for development on previously protected grey-belt land. However, water seems not to have been considered. There are many aspects of water locally that I could focus on, including the excellent work done in Edenbridge on water quality by NEDRA—the New Edenbridge District Residents’ Association—but in the interests of time, I will focus my comments today on water supply only.

This is now a very salient issue for those of us in west Kent. Although Tunbridge Wells has been the worst affected, towns and villages such as Tonbridge, Edenbridge and across the north downs have lost water supply this winter and last winter. Why is that? It is because there is not enough water in the system to supply houses in our area. I am aware that the Water Industry Act 1991 in effect places a legal requirement on water suppliers to ensure that running water appears when the tap is turned on. Although South East Water is not very good at doing that right now, we also need to focus on the future. That means asking fundamental questions. Where is the water—now and in the future? Do housing targets accurately reflect the water infrastructure in west Kent?

I will focus on two authorities in the area that I represent: Tonbridge and Malling borough council and Sevenoaks district council. I emphasise to the Minister that they are two of the very best run councils in the whole country and have been for a number of years. We are very lucky to have brilliant people at both councils, and both are trying to do the right thing for future development and adopt a local plan. In both cases, however, that has been delayed from 2024 because of the Government changing planning policy. It is not the fault of either council that they do not have an adopted local plan; that is because of tinkering and meddling by the Government and, historically, the Planning Inspectorate.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the right hon. Gentleman for bringing forward this issue; he is absolutely right. He outlines a case in his own constituency, which is very pertinent to him. Unfortunately, what he describes is the case across the whole of the United Kingdom. In Northern Ireland, I have the very same problem. Northern Ireland Water seems to be discouraging planned housing, as it cannot meet the need. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Government must step in with direct action and fund the deficit while enforcing the obligations on water companies to hold up their end of the deal?

[Tom Tugendhat]

It is no surprise to me that this issue applies across the whole of the United Kingdom. I very much welcome the hon. Gentleman’s intervention.

One thing that the Government have not changed, but ought to change, is the position of water companies in planning. Somewhat strangely, water companies are statutory consultees on the local plan process, but not on planning applications. I invite the Minister in her response to explain whether she agrees that this is peculiar.

There are four water supply companies across Sevenoaks district. Two cover the area that I am privileged to represent: SES Water in and around Edenbridge, and South East Water elsewhere. In advance of this debate, I asked the new leader of Sevenoaks district council, Kevin Maskell, to outline what engagement on local plan and infrastructure delivery matters the council has received from water companies. The answer was that only two of the four water companies had even replied, and the replies received were very limited. Indeed, the experience from Sevenoaks is that water companies see their role as not being a priority.

There is no detailed modelling for housing projections against water resources management plans, especially for site allocations. All infrastructure planning is deferred to the planning application stage, where the water companies are not even a statutory consultee. That makes it impossible to plan for the cumulative impact of developments on the water network. How is that good for planning? Well, it isn’t.

If the situation with water suppliers is a problem in Sevenoaks district, however, it is critically urgent and potentially disastrous in Tonbridge and Malling. For the benefit of the Minister, I will explain what has happened in recent months. Tonbridge and Malling borough council agreed to its regulation 18 local plan consultation in the autumn. It received unanimous cross-party support, which was a huge vote of confidence in the leadership of Matt Boughton and the work of Mike Taylor, the cabinet member for planning. Both of them have contributed enormously to the life of our community.

The TMBC cabinet member for infrastructure, Adem Mehmet, approached infrastructure providers for consultation responses, including South East Water, which is the drinking water supplier for almost all of the borough—and the whole of the part that I am lucky enough to represent. I have a copy of the response here, dated 17 December 2025. In it, South East Water tells Tonbridge and Malling borough council that the maximum number of additional homes it can supply between now and 2042 is 6,318. The Government housing target for the council is 19,620.

What is Tonbridge and Malling borough council expected to do? Is it supposed to allocate sites for 13,302 new homes, despite having been told that there is no infrastructure for water to be supplied to those properties? I am sure that the Minister agrees that this would not be appropriate or wise. Having received the response, and being the excellent councillor he is, Adem Mehmet wrote to South East Water on 15 January this year, which happened to be in the middle of the water outages we were facing. South East Water responded on 3 February.

Three simple questions were put to South East Water. First, does South East Water agree that it cannot provide sufficient water to cope with a significant increase in housing targets? South East Water agrees that it cannot. Secondly, do the current targets mean that there will be more water shortages? Again, South East Water agrees that the probability of water outages is higher. Thirdly, would the planned increases identified in the water resources management plan allow South East Water to cope with the Government housing targets for Tonbridge and Malling? South East Water says that the increases will not be sufficient to meet the Government housing targets.

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

I commend my right hon. Friend on securing this debate and on the speech he is making about the challenge of supplying water to Tonbridge and Malling, now and in the future with such a huge number of developments planned. Given the difficulty of supplying water to his constituency, where there are 19,000 more homes planned, how on earth can there be enough water for the 20,000 homes in the pipeline for my constituency? We are already suffering with water outages and having to rely on water being tankered, so there is very poor resilience. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government should think again about the scale of the housing plan for rural constituencies like mine and his, particularly given the lack of adequate infrastructure?

[Tom Tugendhat]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her comments, which I completely agree with. I am sure that they have generated enormous response to her current petition, which is at signhelenspetition.com, should you wish to sign it, Sir John. I understand that it will be increasingly popular at this time, and rightly so, given how badly areas of east Maidstone were affected during the water outages a few weeks ago.

What I and my hon. Friend have said will be no doubt familiar to the Minister, who has been aware of this for a number of weeks. She received a letter from Tonbridge and Malling borough council leader Matt Boughton on 16 January, and another on 11 February—I have both of them here. There was one reply received on 12 February from Baroness Taylor in the Minister’s Department, which frankly does not answer the question and does not mention South East Water’s comments at all. The council has chased for a proper reply, but is still waiting. I am sure that the Minister will update me on where that is.

I have been told that officials in the Minister’s Department have met with the planning department from the council, but again there has been no progress. It is that lack of urgency that motivated me to apply for this debate, because, frankly, this cannot go on. I have all the evidence of the council being proactive in raising this issue, and it clearly wants the same as the Department: a local plan. However, the Department is not giving this the attention it needs. I request that the Minister and her officials meet me and senior representatives from the council to resolve this issue urgently.

Why so soon? It is quite obvious that there is not enough water to cope with the current housing targets. The Minister has told the council to submit a local plan for the new high housing targets this year. The applications are coming in—ask residents in Hadlow and Wateringbury, or Edenbridge in Sevenoaks district—but I have been told that Tonbridge and Malling now cannot determine planning applications for new development because of these water issues, even on sites it wants to develop. Right now, there is effectively a moratorium on development in Tonbridge and Malling because of the Minister’s Department. How does that help the Government meet their ambition for 1.5 million homes a year? The Government clearly need to sort this out for our community now, and make changes to prevent this from happening elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

Why did the Government not take account of the water resources management plans when determining housing targets for our councils in 2024? Why are water resources management plans not developed using up-to-date housing targets? It is pretty absurd that the 2007 housing target is used to inform the 2024 plan for water infrastructure in our community. It is no wonder that there is deep opposition to housing targets and deeper distrust of water companies.

Why can Sevenoaks not get any meaningful engagement with water providers on the local plan? Why has Tonbridge and Malling been placed in this position by a completely unrealistic Government policy? The Government are telling them that they must meet their housing targets, and they have no choice, yet the housing target has 13,000 more homes than the water supplier has the ability to cater for. It is not even close to being realistic either way.

What is the solution? There are only two possibilities: one is to get more water into the system, and the other is to reduce the housing target. The water resources management plan 2024 identifies a lot of schemes: new pumping stations, upgrading waste water treatment works, a new pipeline in Tonbridge and new drinking water storage tanks. We could do all the above and we would still be 13,000 homes away.

The question remains: where is the water coming from to fill the extra capacity in the water network? A new reservoir would help, but where would that be in our community, given our proximity to Bewl Water and Bough Beech? The truth is that there simply cannot be enough water for the scale of development that the Government are insisting be accommodated in our area. That means that there is only one way out of the issue: the Government must urgently and immediately reduce the housing target for Tonbridge and Malling borough council, and do the same for other councils in South East Water’s area, including Sevenoaks district council.

It would be completely irresponsible for the Government to proceed with the current housing targets for both councils while this issue remains unresolved. The Minister knows that I agree that we need more homes; in my community, we particularly need homes for people to live as families with their relatives. Our community should not only take its fair share but be part of that opportunity. However, new homes must be built only if we can actually supply them with water, and at the moment we cannot. I urge the Minister to consider the points I have raised and, on the Tonbridge and Malling issue, agree to meet Matt Boughton and me as a matter of urgency.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I will make more progress.

The lack of water infrastructure is blocking our capacity to deliver more homes and is resulting in water outages such as those in west Kent. That is a clear signal that we need wholesale reform and that the system is not doing what needs to be done.

We believe that we can secure water supplies for the future only by managing water demand, reducing leakages and creating new water assets. We have to do all three of those things, and we are working with the water industry and the regulator to do that.

[Tom Tugendhat]

I understand that the Minister is talking about very short-term interventions, but this is about 13,000 homes over a period running up to 2042. I was not going to be partisan about it, but this has come about because of the removal of planning requirements from cities such as London and their imposition on areas such as west Kent. That is a Government decision, and they have a mandate to execute it. They and the Green party voted through the change of green belt into this imaginary grey belt—again, they have the mandate to do that—but let us not pretend that it is not a political choice. The political choice that her Government have made has resulted in increased pressure on water companies, which did not exist before. We can play political games if she wishes, but the reality is that this is a very clear political reallocation from the need in London to the need in rural areas.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

Let me address that point directly. We are clear that we are not building enough homes across every part of the country, and we are trying to ensure that the system delivers. Whether it is my community in London or the right hon. Gentleman’s community in Tonbridge, the reality is that there are not enough affordable homes for people to live in—a situation none of us wants. It is absolutely right to have housing targets commensurate with the need. I do not believe that politics is being played here; we are trying to deal with the need in parts of the country where there is both demand and the capacity to deliver more homes.

I acknowledge that there is a problem with the wider system and the infrastructure that we are building, and we are addressing it, but that is made harder by the fact that, candidly, a lot of these problems have been here for a decade and a half. They could have been addressed, but they were not, so we are trying to do that. We are having to do it all at the same time, but nobody can ask us to resile from our ambition to build enough homes for people to live in.

Supporting High Streets

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)]

I was somewhat entertained by the lines about Labour being the new Trojans, which I suppose makes us the Greeks. It might be worth remembering that the Greeks won the war, and that the current Greek Government are generating employment while this Government are cutting it.

While we are telling stories, it might also be worth remembering that there are some really rather good books out there—none of them written by the Treasury team, it is true. A rather good one came out recently on prosperity for growth, written by Dr Laffer, whose name came up earlier in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), and two Members of the other place, Lord Elliott of Mickle Fell and Lord Hintze—I declare an interest, as Lord Elliott’s daughter is my goddaughter. It is still a good book, despite the fact that there is a connection there. It sets out the principle that we all know—a principle that has been known for hundreds of years—that taxation deters investment, lack of investment deters growth, and lack of growth deters future opportunity to look after all of us, including, in particular, the poorest. What we are seeing on our high streets today is a reflection of that tax policy. We are seeing the increasing ratchet of control—control through regulation, through taxation and through any number of different tools that this Government have brought in.

In wonderful towns such as Tonbridge, Edenbridge and Borough Green—I am sure you could add a few of your own, Madam Deputy Speaker; it would be worth saying that Portsmouth itself—[Interruption.] I have got that completely wrong, haven’t I?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

As a point of information, it might help the right hon. Gentleman to know that my constituency is Romsey and Southampton North.

[Tom Tugendhat]

This explains why I was never welcome in the Navy.

You will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that there are many other high streets, such as those in Romsey and Southampton, that are doing well despite this Government’s policies. However, we are seeing a series of changes that are costing us all, and I think it is worth focusing on a few of them.

The first affects retail, hospitality and leisure properties, which are seeing their rate relief reduced to 40%, and only up to a cash limit of £110,000 per business. Why is that happening? Well, this is basically just another tax grab. It is just another attempt to ensure that those who are working hard to put food on their tables—and, by the way, to put food on the tables of everybody else in this country by generating that employment—

[Lizzi Collinge]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Tom Tugendhat]

I will just finish the point, if I may.

While they are working hard to do that, this Government are trying to squeeze them. I understand why they are doing that, because they have got themselves into a level of debt that is genuinely extraordinary. They are piling it on even more quickly than anybody—

[Lizzi Collinge]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Tom Tugendhat]

If I may, I will just finish my point.

They are piling on the debt even more quickly than any other Administration for a long time, with the exception of during covid, when, as Members will agree, Labour wanted to spend even more. That squeeze is hurting businesses more and more.

I know of independent retailers in Tonbridge and Edenbridge that have seen 300% increases in business rates as a result. It is simply not sustainable. We are talking about taking money off businesses before they are able to pay those who are working there 24/7—those who own the business. That charge, that squeeze and that pain are being put on individuals who are getting up early and trying their damnedest to keep their business going. It is completely absurd.

The £110,000 valuation is artificial, because business rates are set by the Valuation Office Agency, and local businesses have no input. There is no way for decisions to be challenged and no real accountability. We are seeing a Government agency setting a valuation that allows taxation to rise with no possibility of appeal. This is simply no way to run an economy. We are seeing ever-increasing centralisation.

The correct thing to do would be to allow businesses to keep some of the money that they are making in order to reinvest in themselves and in staff, and to actually allow councils to have some say. If we believe in democracy and in individuals having the ability to shape their future, surely we must extend them the right to control how towns, villages and communities across our country tax themselves. Sadly, that is not what we are seeing. We are seeing what we used to describe as a nation of shopkeepers—that nation that defeated tyranny in Europe not once but many times—becoming a nation of bookkeepers, all taxed by the state.

[Lizzi Collinge]

I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman got to his point, kind of. He mentioned hospitality workers. I was a hospitality worker for many years, so I know how hard work it is. I also know about the people who will benefit on the shop floor from the Government’s Employment Rights Bill. Could the right hon. Gentleman say more about how regulation is supposedly harming workers, because as a former hospitality worker I see the benefits of the Employment Rights Bill for all my former colleagues.

[Tom Tugendhat]

I would be delighted to, because direct comparison can be drawn with other countries that have extended these same rules. They protect the workers who are in the job—that is absolutely true—but they dissuade anybody else from joining and starting as a new hire. Then those countries see exactly what we are seeing in the UK today: growing youth unemployment. When there is a burden on a business that makes it harder to change its employment structure, it simply delays employment. That is all that happens.

[Lizzi Collinge]

I thank the right hon. Member for his generosity in giving way, because I am finding this debate very interesting. In the rural areas of my constituency, businesses are struggling to hire workers not because of the cost but because local workers cannot afford to live in those areas because there is no affordable housing. Does the right hon. Member agree that it is very welcome that the Government are focusing on the practicalities that ordinary workers need in order to be employed, which will help rural businesses like those in my area that are struggling to recruit?

[Tom Tugendhat]

Forgive me, but I do not agree. I can see that transport connections and the £2 bus link—which has now gone up by 50% under this Government—was crucial to helping small businesses survive in rural areas, but businesses that were taking in younger people as new starters are not hiring them because of cost. The cost of any change that may be needed in the business, which may evolve or shape itself differently, means that effectively it is not worth the risk. We see this again and again.

The tragedy is that I am not telling this House anything new. This speech could have been given anytime in the past 50 years. The reality is that we have tried all these experiments, and we know how they work: they end up with rising unemployment, rising debt burdens and fewer public services. We know where this goes.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

The real problem in all this is that the Government imposed a national insurance increase on businesses. The second problem is what they have done for businesses that might have taken on new starters by lowering that threshold. It has been an absolute killer on both counts for businesses, so there is a reason why they are not taking on new starters at the moment.

[Tom Tugendhat]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is the reality of what this Government have done. I understand that they have decided to defend the established strength of unionised and employed workers. I get it, but they have chosen specifically to punish incoming workers, young people and those who are trying to enter the labour market. That is the choice they have made. They have also chosen to defend established businesses—those businesses that can pay a large amount for human resources functions—rather than the smaller businesses that innovate and start up. Again, that is a choice that they have made, and let us not ignore the fact that it was a choice. They have chosen the large company, the institution, the established worker, and they have decided to punish the high street.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Blair McDougall]

In a moment, I will come to our plans to reduce the mountain of red tape that the right hon. Member’s Government left us with, and to reduce the cost of that red tape.

Conservative Member after Conservative Member spoke about the Employment Rights Bill. I should say at the outset that we want the rights in that Bill to be fit for the 21st century—the last time that we properly reviewed our employment law and the relationship between employer and employee was in the last century. However, I am astonished that right hon. and hon. Members on the Conservative Benches do not seem to see the connection between how much money people have in their pockets and the ability of their local high streets to thrive. Giving people more secure work and higher wages means that the money in their pockets ends up in the tills of local businesses.

[Tom Tugendhat]

I am very grateful to the hon. Member for giving way—he is a friend, and he is a great man, but he is entirely wrong on this question. The argument he is making is a correct one, which is why I advocate for lowering taxes. However, this Government have raised taxes and rates for businesses, and if we are to believe what the Chancellor has been saying this morning, we have all been warned that she is about to raise taxes on individuals as well. That is costing us all, because people are reining in their spending in anticipation of being poorer.

[Blair McDougall]

I will return the compliment to my right hon. Friend before I disagree with him. This is the problem; there is a certain cheek to the Conservative party leaving us a burning building and then criticising us for reaching for the fire hose. We had to stabilise the public finances—and again, that is not abstract. The Conservatives have to learn the lesson—here comes the groan—from the Liz Truss Budget. They have to learn that lesson, because this is not abstract for businesses.

Returning to the issue of stripping out the costs of red tape, in March the Government pledged in our regulation action plan to cut the cost of regulatory burdens by 25%. At the regional investment summit last month, my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Business Secretary made a great start on that, creating an additional £230 million of savings for businesses by changing the requirements on directors’ reports for businesses of any size.

Chinese Embassy Development

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend has been a vocal advocate for the Hong Kong community in his constituency and across the country. We will stand with and support members of that community; we have a long, shared history with Hong Kong, and many people from Hong Kong have made the UK their home in recent years. Again—I must emphasise this point, and I will continue to do so as questions on this come in—that is a distinct and separate issue from the planning application that will, in due course, come before Ministers in my Department.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak after the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Blair McDougall) today; I spoke before him at the rally to which he refers. Those of us who have been sanctioned—I know that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, are among our number—are particularly conscious of the effect that the Chinese state has on our country. Do you, Madam Deputy Speaker, honestly believe that the Minister thinks that the Chinese would look at this proposal in the same way? Do we in this House honestly believe that something threatening our economic security, as highlighted by the Americans and the Dutch, should go through a bureaucratic planning process, with no ability to vary it, because, frankly, them’s the orders? I do not think that is the way China would do it, and it is certainly not the way we should do it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

It is a very clever question, but it is the Minister who is responding.

English Devolution

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Monday 16th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jim McMahon]

We talk quite a lot about how sufficient funding was not provided over a decade of underfunding, but that does not mean there were not growing costs in the system. We have found that in the end, local government is where all the demand presents itself—whether it likes it or not—when there is failure in other parts of the system, whether that is the failure of developers to build enough properties, the NHS not quite being able to co-ordinate with community services, or the private sector exploiting its audience and charging eye-watering sums, such as in children’s services. We have to redesign local public services around people, place and communities, and public sector reform and prevention are part of that. The alignment of public service boundaries is critical; if people do not have democratic control and oversight over things such as integrated care boards or police and crime commissioners, aligned to strategic authorities, we will not make the progress that we need to make.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)]

I welcome the intention to reorganise local government that the Government have set out. Clearly, this has been in play for a while, but the Minister will know that the independent and sovereign kingdom of Kent has had an identity of its own for about 2,000 years. The exact borders of that identity are open to some debate even today—quite extraordinarily, but they are. Will he please tell us what priorities he will use in the devolution priority plan? Will he be championing size—the 500,000-plus—the transport infrastructure or the historical affiliations? How is he going to understand this, and how will he prioritise for the priority plan?