Commons Sense

House of Commons · Adjournment Debate

Cross-Boundary Housing Developments

28 November 2024 · 1 other contributor

Opened by Peter Bedford Con Mid Leicestershire

Housing

Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.

Read the full transcript on Parliament.uk

At a glance

Peter Bedford raised concerns about cross-boundary housing developments in the House of Commons. A government minister responded. Other MPs also contributed.

Key points

  • Peter Bedford, Conservative MP for Mid Leicestershire, raised concerns about cross-boundary planning applications negatively impacting his constituency.
  • Bedford cited examples in Markfield and Glenfield villages where residents felt undermined by decisions made by adjacent councils.
  • Matthew Pennycook, Labour MP for Greenwich and Woolwich, acknowledged the need for cross-boundary planning co-operation but noted challenges with the current system.

How the debate unfolded

MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said.

Opened the debate

Peter Bedford Con Mid Leicestershire

Peter Bedford, the Conservative MP for Mid Leicestershire, raised concerns about cross-boundary planning applications impacting his constituency negatively. His constituency spans three council boundaries: Blaby district council, Charnwood borough council, and Hinckley and Bosworth borough council. The issue arises when one council grants development approvals on its edges that affect the neighbouring area without compensating for the impact. Bedford cited specific examples in Markfield and Glenfield villages where residents felt undermined by decisions made adjacent to their boundaries. He argued that the Government’s approach of increasing housing targets in rural areas while reducing them in cities is unfair, exacerbating cross-boundary tensions. Bedford called for a more collaborative approach from local authorities, including allowing neighbouring councils to have input on development policies and ensuring financial compensation for adversely affected areas.

Other contributors (1)
  • Josh Newbury Con North Shropshire

    Josh Newbury agreed that cross-border developments cause complications and cited examples from his constituency, such as the Rugeley power station redevelopment. He highlighted issues like services being strained by an inconsistent council tax base and a democratic deficit for residents split between different councils.

Government Response

Matthew Pennycook

Matthew Pennycook, the Labour MP for Greenwich and Woolwich, welcomed Peter Bedford's debate on cross-boundary planning co-operation. He acknowledged that while Leicestershire authorities are at different stages of plan preparation due to delays addressing Leicester city’s unmet need, there is a voluntary collaboration among nine local authorities in Leicester and Leicestershire since 2018 through a non-statutory strategic growth plan. Pennycook noted the challenges with the current planning system that lacks effective mechanisms for cross-boundary strategic planning. He emphasised the Government's commitment to strengthen existing national planning policy framework requirements on co-operation and introduce new legislation for strategic planning, aiming for universal local plan coverage. The Minister highlighted the importance of local plans being in general conformity with sub-regional strategic plans, expecting them to be updated alongside the strategic process. He invited further discussions with Bedford and other MPs as they progress their plans.

Get updates like this by email
▸ Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy