Local Transport: Planning Developments

Amanda Hack Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I thank the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) for giving me the opportunity to talk about one of my favourite topics—public transport, or the lack thereof.

As other rural MPs in the room will know, improving local transport links is a never-ending discussion, particularly in a constituency such as North West Leicestershire that only has a bus service to rely on. We have no passenger rail at all, so everybody needs to travel by road.

Off the back off 14 years of austerity forced upon us by the coalition and then the previous Conservative Government, we need to consider the context that our community has been growing throughout that time. Alongside the destruction of our public services, libraries, Sure Starts and day services, our public transport was cut by 62%.

Planning developments and local transport are about understanding the population we have, as well as the future population. When talking about planning, we have to consider the impact, particularly in my constituency, of huge shed expansion in the industrial sector.

I speak to local residents in Heather regularly, a village in North West Leicestershire. They are just a stone’s throw away from Ibstock, a developing town. Many have told me that when they first moved to Heather, they did not need to use public transport regularly, but knowing they could get a bus meant they had a service they could rely on. Now, as they are getting older, their needs have changed, but the public transport in Heather is long gone. Demand fluctuates, but we are not evaluating that quickly enough or planning for the long term, so when the demography of a town or an estate changes, we are reliant on the community fighting for themselves to get services in place, rather than bus services reflecting the needs of that changing community.

When we talk about connecting new housing developments to leisure, jobs, education, medical and other services, the context is that we have so many fewer services than we had 15 years ago. Context is important in these transport conversations. Planning for change and growth is at the very core of what we are discussing. In fact, planning a new housing estate feels so much more straightforward when the numbers needed to create a new school or doctor’s surgery are taken into consideration. It might not be easy, but we understand the maths that sits behind it. However, when it comes to public transport, it is much less cohesive. It seems a complete waste that public transport is lagging behind in a much more piecemeal discussion. We are not planning for change; we are responding to it, and that is very frustrating for our local communities.

We had a newish development in my community that already involved the enhancement of a new school and the opportunity to extend the doctor’s surgery. As part of the planning conditions, residents were given a six-month bus pass, but it is of little use: there are no buses, so what is the point? We are not getting true, seamless connection between our new developments and our towns. Our towns need those new communities to survive and thrive. Any building in existing town centres does not create good connectivity and extra footfall. It actually means an impairment to growth. Quite often, the bus network does not serve newer estates that sit just outside our town centres, which means that residents are cut off from the town centre, and the town centre is cut off from them. They simply never visit. Therefore, the opportunity to help our town centres is lost. I was proud to sit on the Bus Services Bill Committee, and the Government’s commitment to get more money to local authorities for public transport is clear. However, the difficult part of that is trying to ensure that the money is actually being best utilised, as we are not planning for change; we are reacting to it.

There needs to be a better link between where people live and where services are required. We are never going to be able to plan for everything, but I would like to hear the Minister’s view on how bus services in the long term can be a vehicle for growth and create clearer community connections.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I thank the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) for bringing forward this debate.

On paper, Mid Leicestershire is well connected between the M1 and the A46, but the reality for my constituents is a different story. I am not coming at this as a nimby; I am not opposed to development for the sake of it. I recognise the pressing need for housing, particularly for young people to get on the property ladder, and for growth. However, what I cannot accept is endless development without the infrastructure to sustain it. Homes without roads, rail links and other public transport make the lives of my constituents poorer. So while the map may suggest connectivity, the daily experience of my constituents tells a different story.

In Markfield, for example, residents regularly contact me about the Fieldhead roundabout. Many residents face delays of more than an hour when travelling just a few miles to get to work, to hospital appointments, or to simply take their children to school. All of that is happening while further development is being granted, and there appears to be next to no consideration of the long-term and cumulative impacts of developments on connectivity.

In Stanton-under-Barden, residents have effectively been cut off from Coalville and the surrounding villages since last September. Their sole bus service has been cancelled as the direct result of disruption caused by a large development at the entrance to the village. While Leicestershire county council claims that alternatives are available to residents, my casework suggests otherwise. In Ratby, there is a prolonged closure of roads—again, as a result of developments, which have even disrupted the regular delivery of people’s post.

The question is: what can we do to help residents with the ongoing challenges posed by continued development, while ensuring that we have places for the next generation to live? First, I believe that there must be a fundamental re-evaluation of whether section 106 money is being spent as originally intended. We are consistently told that those contributions from developers to local authorities exist to mitigate the impact of new developments on existing residents, to fund roads, schools, transport links and community infrastructure—but does that actually materialise?

In 2024, it was reported that councils are sitting on more than £6 billion of unspent section 106 money. That is £6 billion that was intended to ease the pressure on communities—to improve junctions, support bus services and enhance local amenities. Instead it lies dormant or, worse still, is returned to developers.

[Amanda Hack]

I am a neighbouring constituency MP, and one of the things that has always been a huge frustration is that Leicestershire is in the top ten of held-on-to 106 money. There definitely needs to be a conversation about how we get that 106 money spent—and spent quickly.

[Mr Bedford]

The hon. Lady and I both served on Leicestershire county council together, so we are both well aware of that issue. We have made the case before to ensure that the money is invested in local infrastructure, and will continue to do so.

Secondly, I have seen in Mid Leicestershire the consequences of being a constituency that straddles multiple local planning authorities. Decisions made on the edge of one authority impact the residents who lie on the other side, in the other authority. I tabled two amendments to the Bill that became the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 that were aimed at addressing that issue. Sadly, the Government chose not to adopt those amendments, so I ask the Minister to relook at the issue to ensure that where multiple planning authorities straddle different areas, that is taken into consideration when planning permission is granted.

Finally, we should not support the Whitehall assumption that all roads must lead to London. We need to link big cities in the north, in the midlands, east and west. That is how we will truly level up. Most of us in this House recognise that we do need development, homes and growth, but development without infrastructure is not progress; it is a burden. We need better connectivity in our local areas, the infrastructure for which goes hand in hand with planning reforms. I urge the Government to take on board the many constructive suggestions from today’s debate, so that we have a system that truly recognises the need for infrastructure before and alongside development.