Housing Development: Cumulative Impacts

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I thank the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) for setting the scene so well. I will obviously bring a Northern Ireland perspective on the impacts of housing development. I want to be fairly positive about how we do things; it is important to understand what we are doing in Northern Ireland and for us to understand what is happening here across the water.

Housing developments are foundations for social stability and improving the economy. I have a close working relationship with many of the developers back home, especially in Newtownards, where there is substantial development in Comber and Ballynahinch at present. There will always be difficulties. By their nature, housing developments bring imponderables to the local communities and associations. It is about how we address those things. I have often had meetings with the developers and local community groups to try to iron out some of the problems. We understand that the planners are independent; they sit between and make the decisions. Representations can also be made to planners as an individual. By and large, we have found those meetings to have gone well.

I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on healthy homes and buildings, which is committed to ensuring that homes are healthy, better environmentally and more efficient, and that they have green areas, playgrounds, car accessibility and charging points. All those are part of building somewhere that people can have as a family home for a lifetime, which is what we are trying to achieve. I make that point because there is a real need for social housing, which I want to illustrate. Housing should never be for private development alone. There has to be a social housing trend, portion or section.

As of March to September 2025, there were 49,000 applicants on the Northern Ireland Housing Executive waiting list, with 38,000 in housing stress with immediate need. That gives an idea of the situation. I have been fortunate to have 400 social housing units built in my constituency, although that does not really reach the need. When we have developments, there needs to be an understanding that there must be some commitment from the developer for social housing needs within that. I would like to hear the Minister’s thoughts here on the mainland about what is being done to ensure opportunities for those who are more likely to rent a house than to buy one.

The other issue in Northern Ireland, particularly in my constituency, is that house prices have risen more than in other parts of the United Kingdom. In my constituency of Strangford, house prices are among the highest in the whole of Northern Ireland. I can speak for my constituency, and the house price increase is shocking. The other issue I have found is that mortgages are quite clearly almost beyond the reach of those who want to buy a house. I know that the Government have committed to ensuring that there is help for first-time buyers, but in Northern Ireland I do not see much of that help. I ask the Minister, respectfully as always: what can be done to help first-time buyers to get on the first rung of the ladder?

I bought my house back in 1987, which is when I finished it. When I tell Members how much I built it for, they will say, “My goodness me. Is that possible?” It cost £27,000 then and today it is worth over £325,000. That house is no longer mine—it is my brother’s; I have moved to the farmhouse—but the point is that there were opportunities to build a house at that price umpteen years ago. I remember very well that when I left school, there was a man who came to Ballywalter to live. He bought my father’s coal business, and I got to know him—I was only 16, so the couple were “Mr and Mrs”. He built his house—in 1971, so not yesterday—for £3,750. A four-bed house—my goodness. I remember saying to him—as we did in those young days, at 16 years old—“Mr Dowds, how will you ever be able to pay your house back?” How wrong was I? In 1971, the price of houses was much smaller, and if he had been able to buy two of them, he would definitely have been quids in.

[Alison Taylor]

The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech. When it comes to young people wanting to get on to the housing ladder, does he agree that five cuts to interest rates is a good start for this Government?

I also totally agree with the hon. Gentleman about more positivity in terms of working with local authorities to find solutions. After a 30-year career in property development, I know that development is never easy. It is about finding pragmatic solutions and working together, and there is a role for the MP to get involved, working with our local authorities.

[Jim Shannon]

I intervened on the hon. Lady in the Chamber yesterday and she has returned the compliment today in Westminster Hall. I recognise what she say—and by the way, I do not take anything away from the Government. I support their target of 1.5 million houses, whether or not they reach it, because it is important to have housing and opportunity, whether for social housing or first-time buyers. I welcome the Government’s commitment. It is not about negativity; it is about how we can take it forward in a positive way.

There are many positive impacts of housing developments, including job creation, local economic growth and investment attraction. However, there are some other crucial aspects that must be taken into consideration. For example, with new housing, there will be a loss of green space. I understand that, but I also understand that people need to have housing to live in. There will be water and air quality issues, pollution, traffic congestion, new infrastructure in the form of roads, clinics, schools and maybe small shops as well. They are all part of this, but if we work with developers and have that in our plans and work with councils, then hopefully we can agree a way forward.

Multiple new developments can overwhelm roads, junctions and parking, leading to congestion and increased travel times. A whole new ring road is being built outside my town, Newtownards, which will open up housing on both sides and create opportunity. Another development in Newtownards, which will have 670 houses, will connect to the last part of that ring road, which is really important —[Interruption.] Sorry, Mr Twigg. I am coming to an end. We also have to get water, electricity, gas, broadband and waste disposal.

Although housing development is essential to meet the needs of a growing population and support economic growth, we cannot overlook the cumulative impacts of multiple developments. Only by balancing the benefits of new homes with careful consideration of their combined impact will we create resilient, thriving communities where people want to live, work, grow and play.

I look forward to hearing the Minister’s thoughts. He is very assiduous and always gives us good answers to our questions. I am keen to hear whether he has had an opportunity to talk to the Minister back home in the Northern Ireland Assembly—I know he does not have responsibility for what happens here in England—to see whether we can learn from each other.

[Derek Twigg (in the Chair)]

Before I call the last two Back Benchers, let me say that I will be calling the Lib Dem spokesman no later than 3.30 pm.

Quarries: Planning Policy

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) for leading the debate. I will give a Northern Ireland perspective, but first, I want to say that quarries bring economic life to communities. They create jobs. All the debate so far has been about the negatives, although we cannot ignore those either. Back home, I always try to find ways of going forward in relationships both with local people who have concerns and with the quarries so that they can continue their work. Quarries can cause noise pollution, environmental impacts, and health risks. It is crucial that the planning policy is correct and properly analysed, and that is why we are having this debate.

Back home in Northern Ireland, we have a range of active quarries. First, there is North Down, a quarry in Newtownards, in my constituency. It is an operational quarry site, supplying stone and aggregates. There is also Whitemountain Quarries, which is listed on the Ballystockart Road in the Comber and Newtownards area. Those quarries are part of a materials and contracting business, supplying ready-mixed concrete. The rock that was brought to build and reinforce the roads around London came from the Ballystockart quarry. Many years ago, I was able to be with those working there one night at 12 o’clock when the stone came across, and they were also doing the roads. Quarries play an intricate and important role in our lives. There are also historical quarries, such as the ones at Scrabo Hill, where there are old sandstone quarry workings, Killynether Wood old quarry and South quarry. Ballygowan quarry, beyond Comber and Newtownards, is one of the largest quarries in the area.

I want to focus on planning policy—it is so important and ensures that the construction process is done properly. For example, materials such as sand, gravel and other finite natural resources are widely used in Northern Ireland and further afield, and planning policy helps to ensure that resources are identified, managed and protected, so that they are available for current use and are managed properly. As an elected representative, I have worked with North Down Quarries. The guys were arriving every morning at half-past 5 or 6 o’clock in the morning, and they were sitting by a row of houses until the quarry opened. After negotiation with the quarry owners and lorry drivers, we ensured that for those neighbours who had concerns, those concerns were alleviated.

Neighbourhood notification allows for greater integration between developers and communities, especially when it comes to managing the impacts of noise, dust and other disturbances. The inclusion of local communities in the decision-making process helps to provide balance, along with protecting the wellbeing of residents. Neighbourhood notifications can also warn residents about blasting, heavy machinery and truck traffic. Dealing with the vibrations of machinery can severely disrupt lives, especially for people who work from home. There can also be damage to property, as has been mentioned, and many people plan their day based on expected noise or vibrations.

The enforcement of rules is critical. The Minister is not responsible for Northern Ireland, but regular and clear communication about quarry operations can help to maintain a long-term, positive relationship between the quarry and the community. That can be essential for future expansion or continued operation. Back home, planning provides clear benefits in relation to protecting the environment and communities, while ensuring correct resource use. However, as we have witnessed in Northern Ireland, there can be huge delays, leading to higher costs and waiting for the unknown. That must also be taken into consideration, for the betterment of public services and for local communities.

Has the Minister had the opportunity to discuss with the relevant Minister in Northern Ireland how we do planning back home? It is not that we are better than anybody else—we are not—but it is about asking: how do we do this in a way that can help us to move forward, and bring quarries and communities together?

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 8th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

It is a privilege to present some of the Opposition’s final words on what I am sure the Minister will agree has been an extensive effort on both sides of the House to debate, scrutinise and amend the Bill. In the light of that, I particularly wish to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) for his efforts; he has worked tirelessly to push the Government to make this Bill fit for purpose. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), who has made invaluable contributions throughout the whole process, both in this place and in Committee. Finally, I congratulate the Minister on seeing the Planning and Infrastructure Bill through its parliamentary journey, although I am hesitant to pour too much praise on many of the aspects of the Bill itself.

When we last came to this House to consider the Lords message a couple of weeks ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner outlined the Opposition’s key concerns regarding the Bill, not least that it fails to satisfy the three tests that we have consistently used to judge how it could help to unlock the housing market, make the necessary reforms to administrative and bureaucratic burdens, and create a dual incentive for communities and developers to embrace more homes and infrastructure. As will now be abundantly clear to the Minister, it is the continued position of His Majesty’s Opposition that the Bill fails on all three counts. His boss, the Secretary of State, knows this, having admitted today that the Government will need a sharp increase in their current run rate if they are to meet the target of 1.5 million homes that they promised in their manifesto—a target that, according to his Department’s own figures, they are currently missing by a long way.

Some improvements to the Bill have been made during the parliamentary process, including the Government’s concession on Lords amendment 33, which we are discussing today. We are grateful that the Government have moved on this question, and we will not seek to divide the House on it this evening.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Everybody recognises the importance of 1.5 million houses being built, given the need for social housing that many people have and the need for houses that people can afford with a mortgage. However, does the hon. Gentleman feel that to move forward in the correct way, there must be discussion with communities to ensure that community integration can take place—discussion about how building houses will affect people, and how infrastructure will affect local farms and landowners? Does he feel that has been achieved in the Bill?

[Gareth Bacon]

No I do not—not fully; I will return to that answer in more detail in a couple of moments.

As a prime example of what more could have been done, the Bill could have addressed the democratic deficit it creates. It strips powers away from elected councillors and gifts them to unelected planning officers, as well as giving more powers to the Secretary of State. That, of course, is just the tip of the iceberg when we consider the clear contempt shown for local democracy as the Government prepare to cancel yet another round of local elections. The Bill also fails to support both those building and buying homes—no amount of centralisation in the Bill will counter the Chancellor’s failure to meaningfully support growth and cut costs. This is despite clear warnings from the Home Builders Federation that the Government must provide help for first-time buyers and reduce taxes on new homes if they are to achieve anything close to the tally of 1.3 million homes by the end of the decade that was predicted by the Office for Budget Responsibility in March.

Let me turn to nature—something I know many MPs have received emails about. The Bill still lacks the clarity and the answers that nature lovers seek to legitimate questions about how we reconcile the delivery of new homes and infrastructure with the need to protect our natural environment. This is most evident when we consider the Government’s focus on removing legal protections on green-belt land. Ripping up the green belt is not the answer, which is why my colleagues and I have called for the swifter redevelopment of brownfield sites. This is not least because, according to CPRE, in a substantial number of local authorities there is enough brownfield land with planning permission to meet the targets set by the Government’s standard method for calculating housing need for at least the next five years. This is something that the Bill and this Government have failed to explore. Across two Secretaries of State, several junior Ministers and almost a year of parliamentary time, the Government have pushed these measures through using their majority, but without using their common sense.

Many provisions in the Bill still leave the market, home buyers, developers and local communities wanting. The triple blow—with a Chancellor running our economy into the ground while hiking taxes and a Government cutting demand-side policies to support first-time buyers—has left the country without a clear pathway to the lofty promise of 1.5 million homes. Don’t just take my word for it: throughout this process, the OBR, the Home Builders Federation, the National Federation of Builders, Britain Remade, the Countryside Alliance, Professor Paul Cheshire, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, and many more industry experts and organisations, have raised concerns, either about the Bill or about the Government’s ability to meet their housing target more widely.

The Government had the chance to fix this Bill, to support infrastructure projects, to back community voices and to deliver the homes that the British people need, but they have not done so. The Housing Minister recently declined to rule out further planning legislation in this Parliament. If that comes to pass, let us hope that next time, he and his colleagues listen to industry, the voices in this House and our local communities, and do what he knows to be right.

Local Elections

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 4th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I do not believe that question warrants a response.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

There are deep concerns about the postponing of local elections—democracy has been in place for centuries. What impression does the Minister think this announcement gives to the general public, who have every right to exercise their civic responsibility in a timely manner? Is she not concerned about the message that it gives constituents about democracy in the United Kingdom?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

The hon. Member is completely right to talk about how sacrosanct democracy is. We absolutely share that view, but it is right that as we think about inaugural elections for mayors—they have never been held before in some areas—we try to ensure that, on the other side of the elections, we have strong institutions that can deliver for people. I think constituents in those areas will thank us if, at the end of it, we have institutions that are delivering incredibly well for them because we have taken the time to get this right.

Oxford to Cambridge Growth Corridor

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Daniel Zeichner]

I was expecting an intervention from the hon. Gentleman because we have discussed this issue before. I absolutely disagree with him, not on some of the points of detail, but on the benefits that railways bring. This is absolutely the right approach, although we can argue about the details. There are people in this room who are more expert than I am on the battery technologies that are now available, which I think will be the solution.

Partly due to the hon. Gentleman’s hard work, this whole project came close to being scrapped a few years ago. I remember well that the then Transport Secretary, Grant Shapps, in a famous intervention—possibly by Zoom—gave a thumbs down to the project, which was widely taken to be the end of it at the time. I now have to praise a leading Conservative politician, the then Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt), who got the argument about how important this was, not just for the arc but for the wider economy. I remember having a number of coded exchanges with him across the Chamber, and being greatly reassured.

So the project survived, much to the disappointment of the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller). I was delighted to join the Minister for Rail, Lord Hendy, in Cambridge a couple of weeks ago to unveil the latest stage in the process. It feels that we are getting past the debate about whether it is going to happen and moving on to how we make it happen. To go from concept to action will, of course, take some years yet, but we are building a piece of transport infrastructure that will be transformational.

There is so much more to the corridor debate than the rail line. The housing opportunities are significant and the knowledge clusters that are likely to emerge are exciting. There were times when the previous Government seemed enthusiastic. I remember MPs along what was then described as the arc being invited to attend a drop-in at the Minister’s office. I turned up, expecting a healthy queue of people, only to find a slightly bemused Minister, who shall remain nameless, looking amazed that anyone showed up, doing his constituency correspondence. We had a perfectly civilised conversation and I queried who they were thinking of appointing as the recently announced business tsar. It was clear that insufficient preparatory work had been done, because he gently asked if I knew anyone who might interested. I came away fairly convinced that there was a lack of grip associated with the project.

Others were more organised. When the project was under threat, the University of Cambridge put on its best Rolls-Royce operation and got involved, with some excellent work from the then pro-vice-chancellor, Andy Neely. That was instrumental in keeping the project alive at a key moment. With others, it then helped to bring together universities along the corridor to pool their efforts. Much more could be said on that, and there are many other players to be acknowledged, but I hope, Sir Jeremy, you get my drift: this has been long in gestation.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Daniel Zeichner]

Absolutely, although I am puzzled as to the relationship between Ox-Cam and Northern Ireland.

[Jim Shannon]

The relationship is that I want to thank the hon. Gentleman for coming to Portavogie in my constituency when he was the fisheries Minister. He left a great impression on the people and was greatly loved. I came here to support him in what he is trying to achieve: a better economy, better jobs and better research. What do we need for all those things? It is housing. Does he agree that there must be housing to meet the demands of the economy and for jobs?

Homelessness: Funding

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Thank you very much, Mr Vickers, for the chance to speak; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship. I thank the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for leading today’s debate. He always leads on homelessness issues, whether in this Chamber or the other, and we thank him for all that he does.

Our housing provision differs across the United Kingdom: in the devolved nations it is different from the provision here in England. One issue I must highlight is the funding that we receive via the block grant, which is used to support the most central services in Northern Ireland. I believe that we need to improve the adequacy of that funding.

I echo the comments that my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) made about veterans. Last winter, I sat out for about an hour in the cold weather—it was enough for me—with a veteran who was trying to highlight the very important issue of homelessness for veterans. I look forward to the Minister telling us what will be done across the United Kingdom.

In the Assembly back home, the Communities Minister Gordon Lyons has announced an additional £2.5 million funding package for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive to boost homelessness prevention services. Homelessness across Northern Ireland is rife; the stats are shocking. There is not a day in my office back home in Newtownards, or indeed in the Ballynahinch office, when we do not have homelessness brought to us as a constituency issue—especially within Ards and North Down, which continues to be such a popular area to live in. The figures speak for themselves. In Ards and North Down, 1,233 households are presenting as homeless and 898 households have been accepted as full-duty applicants; in other words, they were in priority need.

We hear so often what “homeless” means, but full-duty applicants are the priority and in many cases they have not intentionally made themselves homeless. People buy houses over the years, rent them out and then want to release their capital and be better off. We cannot blame them for doing that, but it does put pressure on homelessness teams.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the big problems in Northern Ireland and across the UK is the lack of affordable homes? Many families are finding that that is the difficulty with getting on the housing ladder, and there are social housing issues as well.

[Jim Shannon]

My hon. Friend is right. I have been presented with those cases in my office many times. People want to get a mortgage and cannot get one, because of the price of houses in Northern Ireland. In my constituency, they are the highest in all Northern Ireland; indeed, they are comparable to other parts of the United Kingdom.

I put on the record my thanks to my local housing team and particularly to the manager Eileen Thompson, to Irene May and to the many others who go the extra mile every day to help those in need. We do what we can with what we have, but because of the skyrocketing demand in my constituency and across the whole country, funding is not stretching far enough. Some 29,000 households in Northern Ireland have homeless status, and the policy approaches are not sufficient to meet the scale of demand. Although the Northern Ireland Executive receives money through the block grant, which is allocated accordingly, the figures show how much of an issue homelessness is, and there is more that we can do on home building.

My ask to the Minister—it is not her responsibility where the money goes, but maybe she can pass this on to the right person in the Cabinet—is a commitment to social housing delivery across the whole country and better integration with counterparts in the devolved nations, to ensure that we can support those who are in desperate need of safe and secure housing.

It is essential that Westminster provide stronger and more consistent support through fairer and more responsive Barnett consequentials. We have argued for many years that the Barnett consequentials do not reflect Northern Ireland’s needs. If they did, perhaps we could address the issue of temporary accommodation and homelessness, keep pace with demand and deliver long-term solutions. We must take the necessary steps to make the United Kingdom a safe and secure place to call home.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I will make some progress on the things we will be debating today. In Committee, we amended schedules 1 and 9 to the Bill to state that combined foundation strategic authorities’ decisions on adopting local transport plans and agreeing their budgets will require the unanimous agreement of all constituent councils. This recognises that budget setting and the local transport plan are key strategic decisions that all councils should agree to in the absence of a mayor with a clear democratic mandate. Further amendments to schedule 1 will also require the consent of relevant constituent councils in matters that could result in a financial liability on that council.

Moreover, we believe that strategic authorities are uniquely placed to understand the demands for education and training places in their areas. We have therefore widened duties on strategic authorities to work with their constituent councils to plan provision locally and ensure that enough education and training is provided in their areas. This will ensure that the needs of those aged 16 to 18 and those aged over 19 with an education, health and care plan are met. We have also ensured that at least one full academic year will pass between the establishment or designation of a new strategic authority and that authority being able to exercise the six adult education functions. This approach is in line with that taken for strategic authorities that already exercise those functions.

Turning to local growth plans, we have expanded the definition of relevant bodies that can be named in secondary legislation that must have regard to the shared local growth priorities that the Government agree with mayors. This reflects our original intentions as set out in the White Paper. It is essential that mayors know that their agreed priorities will be acted on, and that all parts of Government are pulling in the same direction to grow the economy.

I now turn to the more substantive amendments that the Government are making on Report to these parts of the Bill. The Bill already provides mayoral strategic authorities with the general power of competence. As currently drafted, schedule 4 allows non-mayoral combined authorities and non-mayoral combined county authorities to exercise the general power of competence only for the purposes of economic development and regeneration. Our amendments remove that restriction, ensuring that all combined authorities and combined county authorities can make full use in the same way as local authorities of the general power of competence.

[Jim Shannon]

I will not be the only MP who has received correspondence from the Country Land and Business Association. That organisation is quite clear that it fears that rural regions will be left behind, and is worried about mayors taking unprecedented control over transport, housing, planning, skills and economic development. How can the Minister assure all of us in this House that mayors will understand what uses of those powers will genuinely support rural businesses, which must not be left behind?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I thank the hon. Member for raising the issue of rural areas. As we see mayors in more rural areas, it will be incumbent on them to respond to the priorities and needs of their local people. That is the beauty of the democracy we are putting in place—it is the beauty of the fact that mayors will be democratically elected. In areas where mayors cover rural areas, we are seeing that those mayors are absolutely clear about the challenges in the rural economy and are working to ensure that their economic and investment plans address those challenges. That is what I expect, because at the end of this process is a democratic lock, and if a mayor does not respond to the challenges in their local area, local people can vote them out.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

My hon. Friend is, I know, an outstanding advocate for his constituents. We will deliver our reforms in three phases. On 1 May next year, we will implement reforms to reshape the tenancy system and remove barriers to renting, including abolishing section 21 no-fault evictions, limiting rent increases to just one a year, and outlawing bidding wars. The implementation dates for Awaab’s law and the decent homes standard are subject to consultation. The 11 million renters in England, including those in my hon. Friend’s constituency whom he mentioned, will not forget that the Conservatives and Reform UK voted against these important changes that will benefit renters throughout the country.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I recognise what the Secretary of State has said about protection for those who rent houses, but desperation is the issue for many people who rent their accommodation, and who find themselves in financial difficulties while living—as we heard earlier from the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (James McMurdock)—in a small, one-bedroom flat. Will the Secretary of State please speak to the relevant Minister in Northern Ireland, who I think would be the Minister for Communities, about what the Government here are doing, to ensure that we in Northern Ireland can be a focus of attention?

[Steve Reed]

I recognise what the hon. Gentleman has said. The answer is, of course, to build more social and affordable housing, and to increase the supply of housing more generally. I am, in fact, due to meet the relevant Northern Ireland Minister to discuss these matters, and I look forward to that.

Local Government Reform: Huntingdonshire

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 19th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of local government reform in Huntingdonshire.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. This debate comes at a timely juncture, as later today Huntingdonshire district council will vote for its preferred option for local government reorganisation in Cambridgeshire. For the avoidance of doubt, and for the benefit of any Huntingdonshire district councillors watching this prior to casting their vote, my preference is for option E: a Huntingdonshire unitary authority. I have already stated my preference publicly, but today, ahead of that vote, I wish to reiterate the point and warn of the dangers of voting for anything else.

I am alarmed by reports that several councillors have opted to vote for option C, not because they passionately believe in the business case, but because they have apparently input option C and option E into ChatGPT and based their vote on the rationale it has provided, sharing it in WhatsApp groups with other councillors and influencing their decisions. If true, that is a hugely embarrassing way to decide on the future of Huntingdonshire.

Although option C is debatably the least worst other option, if Huntingdon district councillors are not prepared to vote for option E and back Huntingdonshire, why should the Government? By voting against a Huntingdonshire unitary authority, those councillors are voting against Huntingdonshire. If they vote against Huntingdonshire, they are effectively saying they are prepared to see it broken up, which is exactly what Labour wants to do.

Option D first surfaced supposedly as a proposal from two of Cambridgeshire’s Labour MPs. It was ostensibly pitched as their proposal, but we now know that it did not actually come from them. I have been reliably informed that option D emanated from the Labour east regional office and that Labour MPs were simply happy to put their names to it. Option D is clearly Labour’s attempt to pork-barrel the local government reorganisation of Cambridgeshire.

Last week, Peterborough city council, the council responsible for the appalling management of the local authority, voted for option D. Without any consultation with the people of Huntingdonshire, it voted, purely out of self-interest, to conduct a land grab of Huntingdonshire in order to shore up the council’s terrible financial position and have somewhere to build its houses.

I have read option D in detail, and nowhere does it articulate or explain what the benefit of splitting Huntingdonshire would be. I would be interested to see the engagement survey results and to know how many people across the whole of Huntingdonshire even knew that was a possibility. I suspect that the first that many people in my constituency will hear of it is when I post this speech on my social media.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I wish to be helpful, as I always try to be. I have spoken to the hon. Gentleman and I congratulate him on the debate. We had a local government reorganisation in Northern Ireland, reducing councils from 26 to 11. The idea was to save money and make the system more accountable. It did not save any money and became more bureaucratic, and the people were the ultimate sufferers. If reorganisation is not done right at this stage, problems will occur down the line later.

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

I wholeheartedly agree. I will come on in detail to explain why the financial implications are so grave. I hope we would heed the warnings from those who have been through this process before, to ensure that the same mistakes are not made again.

Dr Shabina Qayyum, leader of Labour’s city council, was quoted by the BBC as saying that claims that option D was being pursued for political purposes were “insulting”. Given that she and her Labour group were whipped by Labour to vote for it, I suggest that the lady doth protest too much. It will be interesting to see how Labour members vote this evening.

Option D rips Huntingdonshire in half, creating east and west Huntingdonshire. There is a significant risk in attempting to disaggregate Huntingdonshire district council. There is a lack of precedent and absence of lessons learned, not to mention the destruction of local identity in Huntingdonshire, already stronger than identities elsewhere in Cambridgeshire, particularly in separating Huntingdon and St Ives. Disaggregating Huntingdonshire district council would come with greater transition costs and affect service delivery.

It makes no sense to place Huntingdon and Godmanchester, separated only by a narrow stretch of the River Great Ouse, into completely different unitaries. Brampton and Buckden will be split apart; Kimbolton and Great Staughton will be in different unitaries. Those village pairings currently sit within shared county divisions, upon which the wards of the new unitaries in Cambridgeshire will be based. To split them in two means that those divisions will need to be redrawn. The local government boundary commission for England can redraw them only once the unitary exists, and even then those divisions are unlikely to be at the top of the list for redesigning.

The option D business case states:

“Option D is grounded in a deep commitment to the unique identities, diversity and aspirations of each of the proposed unitaries.”

That simply is not true. There is no consensus anywhere in Huntingdonshire to suggest that splitting it in two is the preferred option for residents in my constituency. If Labour was not whipping its councillors to vote for it, it would not have any support at all.

Several of Huntingdonshire’s Labour councillors have either announced that they will not be standing or may not be here after next May. I ask those Labour councillors why they would wish for their legacy as a councillor to be that they voted to rip up Huntingdonshire. Defy the whip! The Labour apparatchiks whipping option D will not be the ones who have to live with the consequences of being part of a failing authority that they voted for. With the best will in the world, they are not going to remove the whip from any Labour councillor in Huntingdonshire. Politically, they cannot afford to.

Fenland district councillors like option D because it gets them out of being lumped with Peterborough:

“Peterborough’s ability to expand is constrained by current boundaries. By aligning with north-west Huntingdonshire, the area opens up to the south and west, creating space for new communities, business investment and international companies”.

Tell me they are planning to use the north of Huntingdonshire as a dumping ground for their housing targets without telling me!

Be under no illusion, Mrs Harris: Peterborough is a basket case. It is estimated that 11% of Peterborough’s budget is needed simply to service its own debts, with 80% needed to fulfil its statutory adult and children’s social care obligations. How on earth does it plan to run all the other existing county and district functions on a 9% budget? Peterborough council’s debt gearing is 91%, against the national benchmark of just 50%. Under the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy’s local authority financial resilience index analysis, Peterborough is rated as high-risk for its overall level of reserves, its unallocated reserves, its earmarked reserves, its interest payable or net revenue expenditure, its gross external debt, its fees and charges to service expenditure ratio, its council tax requirement or net revenue expenditure and its growth above baseline. Huntingdonshire is not deemed to be high-risk in a single one of those categories.

Looking at the debt analysis based on the modelled options, Greater Peterborough is the single worst option for debt financing cost as a percentage of funding; it sits at 11%, which is the only debt financing cost deemed to be high-risk, and we should bear it in mind that the other two unitaries in this option each come in at 4%.

Infrastructure: Cramlington and Killingworth

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

I will call Emma Foody to move the motion and then the Minister to respond.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

On a point of order, Mr Dowd. I am probably not the only Member who has noticed that this Chamber seems as cold as a butcher’s fridge. It was the same yesterday. Have you had any indication when the heating might be turned on?

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

Thank you very much for that point. I am sure we will be able to take it up with the House authorities.

I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Foody]

My hon. Friend has been working closely with me on seeking the upgrades that I will be talking about, so I appreciate his intervention.

[Jim Shannon]

I commend the hon. Lady and understand exactly her frustration in relation to having infrastructure in place. In my constituency we have been pursuing the Ballynahinch bypass for over 35 years—15 of which I have been pursuing it as an MP. We now finally have a date, but such situations hold back development and housing potential, and affect businesses in the short term. Does the hon. Lady agree that such things need to move much more quickly, otherwise they will be the death knell for the towns that we all represent?

[Emma Foody]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right.

The infrastructure in my constituency that I am talking about—as my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) highlighted—is the Moor Farm roundabout; hon. Members will be aware that barely a day goes by when I do not talk about it. I have also met Transport Ministers and I continue to lobby for the much-needed upgrades to be progressed through the road investment strategy.

As has been mentioned already, however, this issue goes far beyond the road network and beyond my area; it affects the entire north-east region. That is why I have called for this debate with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government as the answering Department, because it is about housing, local plans and devolution. It is also critical to several councils in the north-east.

I will set out the context of the existing infrastructure at Moor Farm. This roundabout is a major strategic six-armed roundabout. It links the A19, A1 and A189. Sitting at the south of Northumberland on the border with North Tyneside, it is heavily congested and well used. It is a key gateway for the region and the link between Newcastle International airport and the ports of Blyth and Tyne. It is the key growth corridor for south-east Northumberland.

There is significant congestion at Moor Farm roundabout, which causes misery to local residents. We frequently see substantial delays, especially as a result of accidents on or near it. In recent weeks, we have seen delays of hours due to incidents that are far too frequent. The Department for Transport’s own statistics show that between 2021 and 2024, there was an 85% increase in delays through the northbound A19 section of Moor Farm and 36% increase in delays southwards. The north-east local transport plan states that Moor Farm generates congestion, worsens air quality and results in unreliable journey times. However, this is not a debate on the transport elements of Moor Farm—hon. Members can go back to my previous Westminster Hall debate for that.

In this debate, I want to talk about how the situation at Moor Farm is impacting growth and development across the region in the short and long term. Moor Farm is a blocker to growth and a blocker to opportunity. It is preventing business expansion, causing investment to be delayed or withdrawn, costing jobs and hampering growth. It is putting at risk not only existing development sites for employment and housing in Northumberland and North Tyneside, but the ability for those councils to update their local plans and meet the housing need.

Since being elected, I have met National Highways on several occasions. In the last few weeks, I have written again to the chief executive. Last week, I met regional representatives in Parliament, and I have met the North East Mayor and the roads Minister. The aim of this debate is to discuss the impact that National Highways and the situation at Moor Farm are now having on the ability to determine planning applications—whether for businesses to grow or for housing—across my constituency and beyond.

The Minister will know that as a statutory consultee, National Highways can issue holding recommendations on planning applications, in effect preventing them from moving forward. In response to my written question, it has been confirmed that there are at least four holding objections on applications for housing and business development as a direct result of the Moor Farm roundabout. Not only that, but applicants are delaying or redirecting their investment because they have been told that National Highways would apply a holding objection, so there is a far greater lost opportunity cost. I know from speaking to developers, businesses and the community that investment has not been brought forward because of concerns that planning will be refused or held back as a result of holding objections or unrealistic mitigations.

I will give some examples. The Port of Blyth sits in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington. He and I recently met representatives of the port who informed us that their key near-port site for inward investment is at West Hartford in my constituency, the largest remaining strategic employment site in the whole of Northumberland. It is 10 minutes from the Port of Blyth’s main terminals and there is a firm interest in developing the site.

This is a key regional stakeholder seeking to invest nearly 2,000 jobs and £400 million in my community, but National Highways has indicated that it would object because of Moor Farm, despite traffic impact assessment modelling indicating that the proposal would add one queuing vehicle during the morning peak rush hour and three in the afternoon. National Highways’ objection is simply not reasonable or proportionate, but should it apply a holding objection, there is little that could be done locally due to its role. The Port of Blyth has rightly called for a more pragmatic cost-benefit approach.

That is just one example. The North East combined authority estimates that within a 5-mile radius of Moor Farm there is commercial development with the potential to support more than 11,000 jobs at risk of being held back due the constraints of the roundabout. Another local developer has spoken of sites—one of £500 million in gross development value and one of £1 billion in gross development value—that are in current adopted local plans but are being held up because of the roundabout. I have been told that this has meant 18 months to two and a half years of additional modelling and surveys, but still they have not been able to proceed. One developer described this as a

“near endless loop of present information, National Highways’ consultants review, then respond, rinse and repeat”.

That has real-world impacts. A separate developer on an existing site warned that they may have to remove apprentice roles and other jobs if the issue is not resolved, depriving the community of local opportunities and impacting the local supply chain. That development is already baked into the housing delivery numbers but cannot move forward. Another developer explained that they might not suggest future viable sites as a direct result of expected objections from National Highways, reducing their work and footprint in the area.