Local Elections

Alison Bennett Excerpts

Thursday 4th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a district councillor.

This is such a shambles. We have a local government sector on its knees as a result of decisions made by the Conservatives and, now, the Labour party. So much time and resource has been put into these mayoral elections by local government and officers over the past year; staff and venues for polling stations have already been booked. Does the Minister have any idea how much money has been spent on this over the past 12 months?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

We are very clear that no area will be worse off as a result of this decision. Again, we are talking about four areas within the devolution priority programme, and we will work with those areas. We are providing capacity funding to all of them to help them with this process and help them set up their institutions, and we are committed to ensuring that they will be no worse off at the end of the process.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Alison Bennett Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 25th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Rosindell]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. That is why fundamental reform of the Greater London Authority and the Mayor of London needs to take place. Personally, I do not believe that we need the GLA. I believe we should transfer powers back to local boroughs, towns and communities. If we have some form of authority for London, it should deal purely with the capital—the central part of London. Frankly, do we need a GLA that goes all the way from Hampton Wick up to Havering-atte-Bower, and from Ruislip down to Biggin Hill? We do not; it is an unnecessary layer of government. I would prefer the authority, power and funding to go directly to our towns, villages and boroughs that are controlled locally by elected councillors, not a huge bureaucracy in City Hall that is unaccountable, undemocratic and has very little support among anyone I speak to.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

I am interested in how far the hon. Gentleman would propose to go. Would he advocate the abolition for the Mayor of London?

[Andrew Rosindell]

Yes I would, personally. Madam Deputy Speaker, you will undoubtedly recall that our former Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, abolished the Greater London Council. The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) will remember that very well, because he sat on the GLC at the time. In 1986, the GLC was abolished and what happened? The power went back to each borough across London. We did not have to pay a huge precept. We paid our way for policing and the fire brigade and so on, but generally speaking the powers truly returned—as I hope the Liberal Democrats believe in—to local communities. We did not have an overarching bureaucracy interfering in everything we do, from planning to transport to policing. I would hope that the Liberal Democrats believe that powers should be held as locally as possible.

The overarching bureaucracy in City Hall, which is so unaccountable, really needs to go. No, I do not believe we need a Mayor of London. I believe we need to have local authorities working together where there are strategic matters to be discussed—transport, planning or infrastructure—but we do not need to create a monstrous bureaucracy. Margaret Thatcher was right to abolish the GLC and Tony Blair was absolutely wrong to bring back the GLA, with all its paraphernalia, bureaucracy and huge costs to the council tax payers of the Greater London area. On that note, I ask Members to please support new clauses 85 and 86 to restore our Essex identity and to give us the democratic right to decide our own future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sam Carling]

I recognise what my right hon. Friend has said. In fact, I carefully drafted this speech to avoid attacking Wolverhampton in any way, because I recognise that the reasons for this situation are complex. That goes to my next point: overstretched councils cannot monitor conditions, let alone enforce them, for drivers operating hundreds of miles away. If there is an incident in my constituency of North West Cambridgeshire involving a driver who is licensed halfway across the country, there is no way that their licensing council can properly investigate and do something about it. It would be like asking Police Scotland to investigate something in Cornwall; it just does not make sense.

Thirdly, there is a huge safety issue. Some councils have less stringent Disclosure and Barring Service checking requirements, they are cheaper, or they have no requirement for CCTV or emission-compliant vehicles, so both passengers and drivers are left without adequate protection when there are incidents. That was a key point of the recent Casey audit on child sexual exploitation and abuse, which identified that some councils go beyond statutory guidance as a means of tackling sexual exploitation, but were hindered by a lack of stringency from other authorities.

That problem was also raised in the 2014 Jay inquiry into child sexual abuse in Rotherham. That rings true with calls from all sectors, including from trade unions such as Unite and the GMB—I declare that I am a GMB member—in their long-running campaigns around this matter, to which I pay tribute. I am delighted that the Government have listened to me and others and adopted the proposals that were brought forward in Committee. I look forward to seeing the detail of what the Government propose for national minimum standards, and I will continue to engage closely.

At this point, I was going to talk about the importance of considering raising the licensing authority level to strategic authorities and transport authorities, so it was brilliant to hear the Minister say just now that we will be consulting on that, because that is the other key part of this story. Together, those two measures could have a profound impact on dealing with the issues in this sector.

Turning briefly to other amendments, I wholeheartedly welcome the Government’s new clause 45, which will remove the requirement for local councillors’ home addresses to be published. Given the security environment, this is excellent news. I am aware of more than one incident in my region over the past few years of councillors’ home addresses being publicised maliciously online by bad faith actors, encouraging people to intimidate councillors in their homes. Indeed, that has happened in my region on several occasions, so this provision will have a tangible impact on keeping safe those dedicated volunteers from our communities who are trying to do what is best.

New clause 79, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer), talks about establishing local accounting officers and public accounts committees in each mayoral strategic area. The Government have been talking about this for some time, and there is a lot of support for these committees to hold local spending to account and provide some real oversight, so I would appreciate some thoughts from the Minister on why the Government are not bringing that forward at this time, and whether they are considering doing so more broadly.

To conclude, I really welcome the Bill. We went through it line by line in Committee, so I know what a difference it will make, transforming local government, pushing power out of this place and empowering communities to make decisions that make sense for their areas. As with the last Labour Government, we are spearheading the devolution we need to unlock the growth and opportunities that have for too long been overlooked.

[Alison Bennett]

My amendment 34 is simple but vital. It would strengthen the ability of all our communities not only to bid for assets of community value but to make informed, responsible decisions when doing so. At present, communities have a right to bid, yet, absurdly, no guaranteed right to view. We ask our town and parish councils to act as prudent stewards of public money, to conduct surveys, to secure financing and to follow proper decision-making processes, yet we deny them the basic opportunity to inspect the very asset they may be committing taxpayer funds to purchase. This is impractical, illogical and unreasonable.

A recent case in my constituency of Mid Sussex illustrates the problem well. Hurstpierpoint and Sayers Common parish council sought to bid for a former church building listed as an asset of community value. I can attest to the value that this building had for the community, because when my children were tiny, they went there during the week. It served as their pre-school and I must say that Cottis pre-school was and still is a wonderful facility, led by Sam. I am still grateful to the staff there for their support and the best start they gave my children.

Throughout the six-month moratorium, despite repeated requests, the parish council was refused access to the building. Only after the moratorium ended, when the property was placed in an auction, did the auction house permit inspections. This left the council with just two weeks to carry out surveys, complete its internal procedures and secure public works loan board financing. No responsible authority could compress such due diligence into that timeframe. Predictably, the parish council was unable to bid, and the building—an asset that it could have afforded, based on the eventual sale price—has now passed into private ownership and been converted into flats, removing a much-needed community venue from village ownership.

My amendment 34 would correct that oversight. It would simply guarantee that community buyers had an early and fair opportunity to view an asset so that they could undertake proper due diligence. It would impose no unreasonable burden on vendors. It would merely ensure a level playing field. If we believe in empowering communities, and if we believe that assets of community value should genuinely remain available to those communities, we must give them the practical tools to act. A right to bid without a right to view is a hollow promise. I urge the Minister to support this amendment and give our councils and the communities they serve a fair chance to preserve the places that matter most to them.

[Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)]

I very much welcome this devolution Bill, and today I speak in support of Government new clause 45 and amendments 153 and 107 proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher).

New clause 45 and amendment 153 relate to the essential role of our local councillors. As a recent councillor and leader of Worthing borough council, I can attest to how hard my fellow councillors work for very little remuneration—contrary to public perception—and how much they contribute to the health and wellbeing of our local communities. As my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) alluded to, as the temperature has risen in politics in recent years, these local residents who have put themselves forward with the aim of contributing positively to their communities have increasingly found themselves the target of online and in-person abuse. While it is no more acceptable for them than it is for us in national politics, we must do all we can to ensure that they and their families are safe. It is therefore good to see that recognised in new clause 45 proposing that council members’ home addresses will no longer appear in published registers of interests.

Amendment 153 acknowledges the different forms of council structure, and there has already been some debate on this matter today. My constituency of Worthing West houses two councils—Worthing borough council is a leader and cabinet system; Arun district council is a committee system. Again, as a former council leader, my preference and experience tells me that the leader and cabinet system is highly effective, but I acknowledge that the committee system can potentially allow greater involvement in decision making across the councillor groupings. With that in mind, I am supportive of the intent stated in amendment 153 that if the local authority’s committee system is protected, a review should be undertaken to see whether it is in the best interests of that local authority to move to the leader and cabinet system.

For my constituency, which is also undergoing local government reform alongside moving to a devolution model, our councillors in Worthing and Arun will need to consider the best option for the area as part of our new unitary authority when these footprints are agreed.

Amendment 107 asks that environmental interests be considered as criteria for community right to buy, provided that the land is not allocated in the local development plan. It is positive to hear already from the Minister today about the protections for local sports grounds. The environmental wellbeing of local communities, alongside economic and social benefits, is an area close to my heart as a public health consultant living on the south coast. Worthing has the smallest amount of green land per head of population in the UK—less than a snooker table per person. We have limited green land left in our constituency’s urban areas, and even though we are undoubtedly blessed with the English channel to the south and the south downs to the north, people do not live in the sea and very few of us live in our national park. Our wellbeing is therefore determined by our densely populated urban strip bordering the coastline.

Our remaining green spaces in this area are incredibly precious for our mental and physical health, air quality and climate mitigation measures. Green spaces can help to reduce our ever-increasing flood risk. I therefore would welcome any additional guidance from the Minister in this area for our current and soon-to-be devolved regions, such as my own in Sussex. The health of our population should be our No. 1 priority, and devolved government is ideally placed to help deliver those much-needed protections and improvements for our communities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

With the leave of the House, I will respond to the thoughtful, constructive and robust interventions from hon. Members across the House.

I will start with a theme that has been raised once again by the hon. Members for Guildford (Zöe Franklin) and for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) —that this is a centralising Bill that seeks to take power away from communities and impose on them. I completely and utterly reject that idea. I made this point yesterday, and I will labour it again today: this Bill represents the biggest transfer of power from Westminster and Whitehall to our regions, local authorities and communities. The Government believe that we change the country by putting power in the hands of people who know their patch. That is the principle behind the Bill, and that is what we are determined to deliver.

Let me address the point on local election delays, which has been raised head-on in new clause 69. We understand the democratic necessity to hold elections. People have the right to vote—a right that we absolutely support and will absolutely protect. Labour is up for elections as much as any other party, and our clear intention is to press ahead with elections next year. The decision to postpone elections is never taken lightly, and was not taken lightly when it was made. It is a decision that we will always take with great caution, as it is one that we want to avoid.

However, we cannot accept the new clause, because it is neither rational nor reasonable. It does not allow for extenuating circumstances at a national level, such as a pandemic, or for exceptional circumstances locally that create a challenge for holding elections. While we are keen and determined to press ahead with elections, we are the Government of the day, so we will always take a considered and reasonable approach to this matter.

I turn to the point raised in new clause 17 by the hon. Member for Guildford on the funding of strategic authorities. The hon. Lady was right to highlight the pressure that local government is under. However, I would point out—again, I note the complete cheek of the Opposition here—that that is a consequence of 14 years of austerity and under-investment. The hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner talks about the plight of local government, yet fails to recognise the terrible inheritance that his party left—the huge legacy of denuding and undermining local government that we are now trying to rectify. In 2025-26, the local government finance settlement provided £69 billion for councils—a 6.8% increase in the core spending power for local government. We are moving to multi-year budgets, consolidated funding and a fair funding review, all in order to reverse the decline and under-investment of the previous Government.

[Alison Bennett]

Will the Minister give way?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I will make progress, as we are almost out of time.

On the key question of funding our strategic authorities, we absolutely recognise the vital role that strategic authorities and mayors can play. We are seeing this across the country—that is why we support devolution to mayors and strategic authorities.

On the point about Surrey made by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), we want to see strategic authorities and mayors across the country, including in Surrey. However, we are also clear that if we want them to drive the change that we believe they can drive, we must equip them with the resources and powers to do the job that is required of them.

I have a lot of sympathy for the intention behind new clause 17. However, as I said yesterday, there is a new burdens assessment, which will always apply. When new responsibilities are placed on strategic authorities and mayors, the new burdens assessment will be applied to ensure that they are funded appropriately. Indeed, for the priority areas in which we are moving forward with devolution, we are providing capacity funding up front to make sure that they have the capability and resources to do the job at hand. This basic principle will always hold: when we give out responsibility, we will ensure that the resources are there to take on that responsibility well.

Members spoke eloquently about the need to ensure that we are providing strong neighbourhood governance, and we share that ambition. Some Members talked about town and parish councils, and others talked about neighbourhood committees. We are clear that it is down to communities to decide the form and function of neighbourhood governance. We want to see neighbourhood governance in every part of the country, and we will provide regulations that set out the principle of neighbourhood governance and what it should look like. In addition, we will provide non-statutory guidance to support communities as they embark on neighbourhood guidance.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alison Bennett Excerpts

Monday 14th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alex Norris]

My hon. Friend is tempting a Member of Parliament for Nottingham to say something nice about Derby, which is slightly challenging for my prospects when I go home on Thursday. I do recognise the characterisation of the exciting plans ahead for Derby, and I share exactly her point on policing. We can have the most vibrant community possible, but people will not participate unless they feel safe. We are talking with the Home Office, and I would tell my hon. Friend to watch this space.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

Last week, Hurstpierpoint’s former Methodist church received permission to be converted into flats, despite the parish council registering it as an asset of community value and expressing its sincere wish to purchase it. Does the Minister think that the regulations for assets of community value are fit for purpose? How can they be improved?

Residential Estate Management Companies

Alison Bennett Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. Residents in Mid Sussex continue to fall victim to sky-high management fees and poor customer experience on a grand scale by companies such as McCarthy Stone and FirstPort. We need good quality homes for people to live in. We need them for first-time buyers, for growing families and for older people looking to downsize.

Those looking for suitable housing in their later years in Mid Sussex often look to flats run by McCarthy Stone. Sadly, many of them and their families are being badly let down. Perhaps the most shocking example involves a constituent of mine in Corbett Court in Burgess Hill, where McCarthy Stone charges up to £14,000 a year as standard. An elderly Corbett Court resident was charged £8.54 for an on-site staff member to come to their flat and pick up a remote control.

People in all stages of their life are finding themselves living on estates run by management companies like FirstPort. Constituents from Hassocks to Lindfield have written to me, setting out a raft of issues that residents are facing. FirstPort refused itemised breakdowns of fees despite huge increases, and in one instance a constituent was told that they had been incorrectly charged and were immediately told to pay £575 within three weeks—clearly a totally unreasonable timeframe, not least because the mistake had been made by FirstPort. All of that while residents tell me, “FirstPort’s communication has been non-existent and they are not completing their duties.”

People have been through enough. If we want to successfully and sustainably grow our housing offer for future generations—young and old—something needs to change.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alison Bennett Excerpts

Monday 7th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rushanara Ali]

The hon. Member will be aware that there is a massive housing shortage and that there are challenges around supported housing. We need to ensure, as we are doing, that victims of domestic violence get the support they need, which is why we provided the additional uplift of £30 million, to a total of £160 million. We are working across Government to tackle the root causes of violence against women, within which work economic and housing support are crucial. I look forward to working with her and others on this very important agenda.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

11. What steps she is taking to ensure that town centres can support growing communities.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Alex Norris)]

We all want to see our town centres thriving. Through our plan for neighbourhoods, the Government are investing £1.5 billion in the future of towns and communities. The Government have also committed to strengthening the developer contributions system to ensure that new developments provide the necessary infrastructure. To address vacancy in town centres, we have given councils the powers to force the auction of empty shops.

[Alison Bennett]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Burgess Hill is fast-growing, and the Lib Dem-run council is working hard with Homes England to deliver 3,500 new homes, hundreds of which will be affordable. However, after years of Conservative failure, my constituents are worried that housing growth will go hand in hand with the hollowing out of the town centre. My Lib Dem colleagues want to deliver a buoyant town centre through a public-private partnership, so will the Minister visit Burgess Hill to see the innovative approaches we are taking to make it thrive again?

[Alex Norris]

I am grateful for that question, and for the spirit in which Burgess Hill is taking on the need to build housing in its community. We believe that sustainable housing with complementary infrastructure will drive the local economy—it will drive footfall to town centres and help bring private investment to high streets. Clearly, something interesting is happening in Burgess Hill, and I would very much like to visit.

Construction Standards: New Build Homes

Alison Bennett Excerpts

Tuesday 25th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Michelle Welsh]

I agree completely with the hon. Gentleman.

When moving into a new home, a high quality and safe living environment is expected. We should not be expecting anyone to live in properties that do not meet these standards.

What has further shocked me about this case is the treatment of my constituents by Harron Homes. In an email, Kelly and Simon were described as “a pain” and they have had to wait weeks for repairs, and even just for a response. They deserve better, yet they are not alone in their experience.

Sara, a constituent in Hucknall, got in touch with me immediately following my election in July, regarding her ongoing case with Persimmon Homes. Like Kelly and Simon, Sara walked into her new home to find it completely below standards, with over 117 different faults and damages across the property. These included damaged flooring, poor insultation leading to cold spots, and plumbing issues. The company had even left my constituent with a broken patio door that had large gaps around the side, leaving her and her family fearing for their safety as the door could not be locked. This has understandably been extremely distressing for Sara and for her elderly mother. While Persimmon Homes has offered Sara some money to put towards the cost of repairs, it will not be enough to cover the full extent of the damages and faults in her home. Over 70 defects still remain. It is wrong that Sara was ever in this position, and that the construction standards of her home were not properly monitored. How many more families like Sara’s have to battle just to get the quality of home they originally paid for?

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way, and for the case she is setting out. This is something that I have experienced with residents in Mid Sussex over a number of years, particularly in the village of Hurstpierpoint. The village has taken considerable numbers of new houses, and there have been houses among those developments that have been substandard. I think in particular of a family who had a brand-new house where, if you ran your hand down the wall, you could tell there was a film of grey mould. It took years of hassling the housing association and the developer for them even to admit that there was a problem and that they were are at fault.

Does the hon. Member agree that if we are to win the hearts and minds of people who are sceptical about housing growth in their villages and towns, confidence in the quality of new build housing must be beyond question?

[Michelle Welsh]

I completely agree. I was pleased that the Government announced they are accepting some of the recommendations in the Competition and Markets Authority’s housebuilding market study. I am particularly pleased that we are implementing a statutory UK-wide new homes ombudsman scheme and supporting the development of a voluntary ombudsman scheme to improve consumer protection ahead of the statutory scheme’s launch. For too long, customers have felt like they have nowhere to turn, are not being listened to by the big developers, and do not know their rights. I hope this is a step towards changing that.

I ask the Minister that when drafting the new UK-wide scheme, the Government put quality at the heart and ensure that people have all the necessary protection in cases such as those of my constituents. We must also have better oversight and accountability for companies that do not deliver high-quality construction standards. It is vital that we showcase what good practice looks like. I know there are many builders who do an exceptional job, and take great pride in their work. We cannot let the reputation of new build homes be ruined by a few rogue companies.

I mentioned earlier that I am proud that this Government have committed to delivering 1.5 million quality homes. In my constituency, the quality has sometimes been very lacking, the infrastructure has been very lacking, and the local Ashfield district council has been gerrymandering with its local plan, which continues to put precious historical land at risk, while there are more than enough brownfield sites to be used across the district. I ask the Minister that when we deliver these homes, the necessary steps are taken to ensure that the right companies and builders are selected to complete this work; that we work to provide the infrastructure that is needed; and that when councils let their communities down, like Ashfield district council has, the Government will step in.

I ask the Minister to ensure that the Government and local authorities have the necessary oversight powers to ensure that quality is maintained throughout the house building process. We have a real opportunity to build the homes we desperately need, while beginning to close the skills gap and shutting out rogue companies that underperform. Tradespeople need protection so that they are able to do a high-quality job.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lee Anderson]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, which, as usual, is spot on. He is quite right, and I have had loads of these problems over the years. In fact, I had a big project running on a few of my new house builds in Ashfield a few years ago, and I was getting exactly that problem. People think they have a 10-year guarantee, but when they try to get in touch with the NHBC to get the work put right, they find it is next to useless. That is why the people on these new housing estates are contacting their local councillor and their local MP in great numbers.

While I am here, I will give right hon. and hon. Members a tip. Because of what the hon. Member for Sherwood Forest has said, if they get a new housing estate in their patch—I am getting one shortly—they should go and knock on the doors, deliver a snagging leaflet or do a survey to ask people whether they are satisfied with their house builder. Hon. Members would be surprised how many surveys we get back from constituents who are deeply unhappy with the state of their house.

[Alison Bennett]

I have done exactly that. I sent out a street letter and flushed out all sorts of problems with new build estates. Problems with management companies sometimes come up in those surveys. Is that something that the hon. Gentleman wants to comment on?

[Lee Anderson]

It is. We have had problems with management companies in one of my estates in Kirkby-in-Ashfield over the maintenance of a local park and some of the green spaces that come with these new house builds.

I want to touch on what the hon. Member for Sherwood Forest said about our problems with Ashfield district council. We have not had a local plan in Ashfield for nearly 25 years. Each time the administration changes, it falls out over a local plan. That has meant that developers can apply to build anywhere in Ashfield, and they are attacking our green spaces at great pace. In 2018, we were promised a local plan to protect our green spaces within three years by the current independent-led council, the Ashfield Independents, because they had ripped up the old plan. Fast forward seven years and there is no local plan. One has been put in, but it does not protect our green spaces. It will allow developers to run roughshod over our green spaces in Ashfield. It will allow developers of new houses to come in and build their shiny new houses on green fields, which will lead to loads of problems. In my constituency, we will get loads of people complaining about their new build houses.

As the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) said, people expect to have the internet connected to their houses these days, and some of these housing companies are deliberately misleading their customers. They do not admit that there will not be any broadband in the houses they are selling. Most people assume that in this day and age, it is another utility like their gas, electric and water. It has been a complete nightmare for some of my constituents on the newer estates. I will close there, and I thank the hon. Member for Sherwood Forest once again for bringing this debate to Westminster Hall.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore]

I absolutely agree, and that point has been made by the hon. Members for Sherwood Forest and for Ashfield (Lee Anderson): once someone has purchased a property or is tied into a contractual relationship, dealing with those snagging issues is a huge challenge. Where can they go from there? They have been taken out of the local authority’s remit to deal with it, because it has approved the planning application—having probably not carried out any enforcement action at all. That is the problem I observed with Bradford council’s lack of any attention to the challenges that we faced in Keighley, Ilkley and the wider area that I represent.

The problem is that, when someone is locked into a contractual relationship, or has even moved into a property, and there are snagging issues, they are effectively trapped and there is no real ability for any organisation with any weight to deal with that. Will the Minister address in her closing remarks what action the Government will now take to deal with cases where new developments have been constructed of a poor quality and concerns have been consistently raised?

It should not take a Member of Parliament to deal with those concerns—it seems that only housing developers only then suddenly realise they have to do something about them. What will the Government do to provide more weight to these concerns that are being raised, so that people with snagging issues can have reassurance that those problems will be sorted out?

I will conclude my comments by discussing the challenges associated with dealing with section 106 moneys. When planning applications have been approved, there is then effectively a negotiation that takes place between the developer and the local authority. I again have to rely on Bradford council negotiating the best deal for whatever that section 106 money is contributing to. Section 106 money is effectively a payment to deal with any mitigating factors that have been negatively imposed on our community through that development. I give the simple example: if those negotiations are not robust enough, that disadvantages the communities we represent. If that section 106 obligation is not spent or enacted within a reasonable time, our constituents are significantly disadvantaged as a result of a local authority—such as Labour-run Bradford council—not responding well enough. That disadvantages the communities we represent.

[Alison Bennett]

I have no knowledge about the workings of Bradford council, being a Sussex MP, but in my experience—and I should declare an interest in that I am a district councillor in Mid Sussex—local councils do not necessarily have the powers needed to move swift enforcement action. In section 106 negotiations, they do not necessarily have the deep pockets of the development sector to lawyer up and get those good deals. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?

[Robbie Moore]

I would politely push back on that. My understanding is that local authorities do have the powers available to them throughout the planning process to challenge the planning application put before them and to have a robust level of negotiation with the developer, resulting in a section 106 obligation being firmly and robustly constructed to deliver residents’ best interests. It is up to the local authority whether it chooses to utilise the powers awarded to it. In my case, I feel that Bradford council does not use any such powers in the first place.

Housing Development Planning: Water Companies

Alison Bennett Excerpts

Wednesday 12th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Helen Morgan]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He has campaigned endlessly and consistently on that point and I entirely agree with him. I was concerned when both the Government and the Conservatives voted against his amendment in Committee. Perhaps in their winding-up speeches, they will explain the rationale to my constituents, who are faced with the reality of putting cling film over their toilet every time there is a big storm.

The current requirements, all of which allow consultation, have been inadequate in the example I have given, and indeed in many others. The local plan process requires local authorities to consult the water companies on infrastructure requirements. That should be a positive step; it is how future infrastructure should be determined, with plans made by both the local authority and the water company. However, many councils fail to develop local plans. Shropshire’s Conservative council has just had to withdraw an inadequate plan, having failed to satisfy the requirements of the planning inspectors, leaving the county open to a planning free-for-all in which it is unnecessary to consult water companies. I therefore urge the Minister to ensure that in the review announced at the beginning of this week, water companies are added to the list of statutory consultees. I urge him also to tighten up the rules to prevent such a fiasco from emerging again, when after years of work and of taxpayers’ money being spent on a local plan, it is not fit for purpose and the whole process has to be started again. That is unacceptable for my residents, who are paying their council tax.

Another development 10 miles to the north has had similar issues, but in that case, in addition to concerns about the capacity of the pumping station and existing surface water flooding problems, Severn Trent has refused to adopt the drainage network, citing as its reason that the sewers were not built to the standard agreed under the section 104 arrangement in place. The developer, which I should say disputed that there were defects in the system, requested that Severn Trent return its section 104 bond, and it did. All of that was done without the residents’ knowledge. They only found out nearly three years later, following repeated complaints to the water company, which is tanking sewage away from the village on a weekly basis.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

On the section 106 moneys being returned to the developer, this week I had a meeting with Southern Water and then a meeting with a significant regional house builder in the south-east. A very similar situation was presented to me, wherein Southern Water had not actually managed to carry out the £2 million of improvements to the sewerage network that were required as part of the section 106 agreement. Does she agree that in such a situation it is incredibly hard for politicians and councils to make the case to residents that development is justified, when time and again they are let down by the development system?

[Helen Morgan]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. Residents are genuinely concerned about the impact on their village or town when the rules clearly are not allowing for additional infrastructure to be built. It is reasonable for them to expect that infrastructure to be built. We would see far less nimbyism if people had confidence that the infrastructure will be there when new houses are built.

The point I am trying to make is that the section 104 process is not fit for purpose. It is ridiculous to require a financial bond. The point of that bond is to deal with exactly the situation where the sewerage network has been inadequately built and needs to be adopted. The bond is there to ensure that the water company brings that sewerage system up to standard, so that it can be adopted.

English Devolution and Local Government

Alison Bennett Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

Although the exact word “devolution” might not have been on people’s lips, change was, which is why we got the mandate we did. The hon. Member talks about health. We put £22 billion of extra investment into our NHS because we recognise the challenges that it faces. ICBs are part of the devolution Bill and White Paper, and we will continue to work to ensure that mayors have a say over what happens.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

I thank the Secretary of State for answering so many questions this afternoon—she has been on her feet for some time. I am dismayed by the delay to elections in West Sussex, partly because when the district recently went through a reorganisation of its boundaries, it took nearly two years to complete. Unitary authorities are large entities and this is an enormous task, especially given the scope of what has been announced today for the south and east of England. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the capacity of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England to deliver the boundary reviews? Will she expand on the financial support that will be given to councils to ensure that they are able to merge vital public services?

[Angela Rayner]

I hope that my lunch is delayed and not cancelled, Madam Deputy Speaker.

On delaying elections, I have been clear about the high bar that I set. I absolutely understand the enormous task that is faced when looking at reorganisation, which is why we will put extra support in place. I cannot outline exactly what that will be for the hon. Member’s area, because it depends on what is needed on a case-by-case basis. The Government are committed to working with authorities to meet that timetable. I have been clear from the Dispatch Box that we want those elections to go ahead in May 2026. We will be working on that basis, and my Department will be working with local leaders to deliver it, on the basis that they knew the delay was happening.

New Homes (Solar Generation) Bill

Alison Bennett Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 17th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) for introducing the Bill. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

Just after the general election, Ministers made the shock decision that the Sunnica solar farm in Ely and East Cambridgeshire would go ahead, despite the planning inspector’s recommendation that it should not. The farm will cover a vast area of our green space, using up prime farming land—land that could be set aside for the benefit of nature, and land that we might have used to build much-needed new homes. No sooner had that solar farm got permission than the lovely glossy leaflets for the next one came through the door about the next consultation, on an even bigger solar farm across my constituency, and others. Yet, as we have heard, we have acres and acres of roof space that we could put solar panels on. Why are we not doing that?

A couple of years ago, I was on a planning committee visit to a new housing estate that was being built, and I noticed that there was just one, or sometimes two, solar panel on each roof. I said to the developer, “Why just one or two? That’s hardly making a dent in things.” His answer was, “That was all we were required to do.”

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, because I am a councillor on Mid Sussex district council. Some four years ago, I was sitting in training on a cross-party basis with Conservatives, Greens, Independents and Liberal Democrats, and we asked our planning officers, “Why can’t we mandate that all new builds have solar panels on the roof?” We were told that we were not allowed to, because it was not in the NPPF as it stood at that time. Does my hon. Friend agree that, in order to make the case for house building and tackle the housing emergency, we need to be able to convince the public that we are building high-quality houses that are fit for a climate crisis and that are energy efficient to reduce bills?

[Charlotte Cane]

I entirely agree. We had a similar frustration when looked at revising our local plan, because we wanted to put things in about energy efficiency.

Local Government Reorganisation

Alison Bennett Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jim McMahon]

It is quite usual for a county council and a district council to disagree on the way forward. From a Government point of view, we will consider proposals on an equal basis wherever they have come from—from a county council, a district council or a unitary authority that might change its boundaries. It is important that that is clear, because we want to make sure that, in the end, it is the right deal for local people, it is the right deal for taxpayers and it delivers good public services.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

How will the Minister avoid a fire sale of district and borough council assets once they are merged with county councils, which are crippled by the soaring cost of adult social care? Does he therefore agree with me that 2028 is too late?

[Jim McMahon]

We can only go as fast as the process allows. We can start the process early, and we have done that. We can give clarity early, and we are doing that. What we cannot do is to shortcut a legal process that requires adequate consultation, the development of proposals and a transfer of workforce and assets to a new unitary council. That must be done in the right way, which takes time. We absolutely understand the point about local community assets, which is why community asset protection and the community right to buy are so central to our agenda going forward.