Green-belt Development: Rayleigh and Wickford

Mark Francois Excerpts

Friday 20th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

I am grateful for this opportunity to raise the important matter of the potential development of the green belt in my Rayleigh and Wickford constituency. In addition, I am sure the Minister responding to the debate has many pressing demands from his constituency diary on a Friday, so I am personally grateful to him for being here in the House of Commons this afternoon to respond on behalf of the Government.

To add context, I will briefly explain to the Minister a bit about the geography of my constituency and how that is pertinent in relation to future development. In essence, south-east Essex is something of a peninsula, bordered to the south by the River Thames, to the east by the North sea, and to the north by the River Crouch and the River Roach, which run inland from the North sea as far west as the village of Battlesbridge.

There are two principal east-west arteries that run from London into south Essex, namely the A127, the Southend arterial road, and the A13, which runs broadly parallel to the A127, but further south, closer to the Thames. Both roads are already extremely busy during the morning and evening peaks. I am sure the Minister is familiar with the concept of heat maps, whereby the busier the road, the darker the shade of red they appear on the map. Both roads are effectively glowing bright scarlet during peak periods, because they are already at between 98% and 99% capacity in the morning and evening rush hours. In simple English, these roads are already maxed out, despite a number of junctions being upgraded along both roads in recent years. In simple English, these roads are already maxed out, despite a number of junctions being upgraded along both roads in recent years.

When we look at medical infrastructure, the theme of a system creaking at the seams is unfortunately repeated. Both Southend and Basildon university hospitals are part of the Mid and South Essex NHS Foundation Trust, along with Broomfield hospital at Chelmsford. The three hospitals were merged some years ago, admittedly under a Conservative Government, and it is fair to say that the merger has not been a great success. In the case of Southend hospital, according to the senior trust management, last autumn, prior to so-called winter pressures, the hospital was already at 98% to 99% bed capacity. Once winter pressures were added in, it went well beyond 100%, and unfortunately there were frequent incidents of patients on trolleys in corridors. The situation is similar at Basildon hospital, slightly further west. I have raised Basildon hospital with the Minister before. In addition, GP surgeries in south Essex have patient lists above the national average, and are under tremendous pressure too. For brevity, our education infrastructure is also under considerable pressure, especially with regard to places in special educational needs schools.

I have tried the Minister’s patience by mentioning all of this in order to try and explain as frankly as I can the serious infrastructure pressures that residents in my constituency, and right across south Essex, are already experiencing. Given these, it is absolutely critical that any future development should incorporate large-scale infrastructure investment to be provided well in advance of the tens of thousands of extra houses that Labour is seeking to build in south Essex, as part of their desire to create an additional 1.5 million homes over the course of the Parliament.

For the avoidance of doubt, I accept that there does have to be some additional house building. Clearly, young people cannot live at home with their parents forever. But any such construction has to be done sensibly, at a pace that the local infrastructure can realistically accommodate in an environmentally sustainable way, so as not to adversely damage the natural habitat nor degrade the quality of life of the people who already live in the area—they have rights too.

When it comes to housing targets, I am afraid that the Minister and I have a very basic philosophical difference. I admit that under a previous Conservative Government we did at one time have a system of mandatory housing targets, whereby officials in Whitehall could set targets for house building for each local authority, and then left it up to the local authority via its local plan to decide where that arbitrary number of dwellings should be built.

I was one of a number of Conservative Back Benchers who lobbied very hard to have that procedure changed to a system of advisory targets, whereby Whitehall could set a benchmark, but local authorities with special circumstances—for instance, a large proportion of green belt—were at the very least given the opportunity to argue back, and make a case for reducing such arbitrary targets if they threatened to be realistically undeliverable in practice. I very much regret that the incoming Labour Government immediately reverted to a system of mandatory targets, made worse by their overreliance on a computer algorithm in order to calculate the number of dwellings supposedly required in each local council area.

The prospect of so-called devolution and local government reform, about which I am deeply sceptical, has only threatened to make this already complex situation even more confused. In short, I believe it is highly unlikely that Labour will achieve its 1.5 million target, not least because it now incorporates a policy of making 50% of all new dwellings affordable. That was exactly the same policy that was operated for years by the Labour Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan. It is a matter of record that Mr Khan never gets anywhere near his housing targets. Indeed, they have now been reduced at the expense of increasing targets in the home counties, including in my home county of Essex.

The 50% affordable policy deterred many house builders from building anything at all. As it failed in London, I believe it will now fail elsewhere across the country. As one example, Phillip Barnes, group land director at Barratt Developments, which has a £5 billion per year turnover, raised concerns about the policy in a blog in August 2024. He warned that existing sites within the green belt in draft local plan applications for housing,

“will not be able to provide 50% affordable housing”.

He went on to say that since the draft NPPF—as it then was—Barratt

“has already pulled four in-flight planning applications on draft allocated sites because the spectre of 50% renders the scheme unviable due to the unacceptably reduced (or removed) land value for the landowner”.

Nevertheless, Labour’s doctrinaire adherence to the 1.5 million figure means that they are giving local authorities targets that are so high as to be realistically completely undeliverable—short of massive infrastructure investment, which the Government are clearly not in a financial position to provide. Last month alone, borrowing was £17 billion.

I will now raise with the Minister some specific examples of where his Government’s policy is already beginning to cause threats of unsustainable development in the green belt. Some months ago, Labour-led Basildon borough council published their regulation 18 draft local plan. The proposals anticipate building an incredible 27,000 dwellings across the borough council area during the planning period out to about 2043, 4,200 of which are anticipated to be built in and around the town of Wickford in my constituency. For the reasons I have already articulated, there is absolutely no way that the infrastructure in and around Basildon, Billericay and Wickford can possibly cope with massive house building on that scale, not least because about half of the sites are in the current metropolitan green belt.

Basildon borough council has published a number of documents supposedly related to infrastructure, but they are incredibly thin in actual content. For instance, the supplementary document on health and medical infrastructure says absolutely nothing in detail about the expansion of capacity at Basildon hospital at the heart of the borough. That is despite the fact that according to the NHS’s own metrics each new dwelling could represent an additional 2.4 patients for the hospital, producing an overall total just shy of 60,000 new patients for a hospital where they are, metaphorically, already coming out of the windows as it is.

All Basildon’s extremely limp document on health says on the subject is that it will all be sorted out by the integrated care board. I have double-checked that with the leadership of the Mid and South Essex ICB, which is itself now in the course of a reorganisation into a countywide ICB. I was assured that there have been absolutely no discussions between Basildon borough council and the integrated care board about the expansion of capacity at Basildon hospital. Basildon’s reg 18 plans should be found unsound on those grounds alone.

Moving on to the Rochford district council side of my constituency, we can already see how the Government’s targets are having an adverse effect there, too. As one example, Taylor Wimpey recently began a consultation on plans to build up to 350 houses in the metropolitan green belt, in an area of land between Mount Bovers Lane and Gusted Hall Lane in Hawkwell. The local community are up in arms about that, and if the Minister had the time to drive down Main Road in Hawkwell, he would see protest posters in almost every window against this completely unsustainable development in the environmentally sensitive upper Roach valley.

The site is wholly inappropriate for development, and indeed it is specifically excluded within the current Rochford district council local plan. Policy ELA3 states:

“The Core Strategy states that the Upper Roach Valley will be protected from development which would undermine the area’s role as a green space, providing informal recreational opportunities.”

Moreover, policy URV1, which relates specifically to the upper Roach valley, says:

“Policy URV1 seeks to protect the Upper Roche Valley from development so that it can become a ‘vast’ area for informal recreational opportunities.”

The policy goes on:

“The Council will strive to see the Upper Roach valley become a vast ‘green lung’ providing informal recreation opportunities for local residents. The Council will protect the area from development that would undermine this aim and will continue the approach of creating the right conditions for flora and fauna to flourish, with the minimum of interference.”

I should explain to the Minister I am firmly opposed to the proposed Taylor Wimpey development, which is completely contrary to two very specific policies in the excellent Rochford district council local plan, as I have just emphasised.

There are absolutely no “very special circumstances” that would justify house building on this scale in this part of the green belt, which is extremely popular with my constituents for leisure purposes, jogging and dog walking, all of which contribute to their wellbeing. However, this is by no means the only example of where inappropriate development is now being proposed in my constituency. When I was seeking re-election last year, Mr Speaker, my final leaflet was headed, “Give me a mandate to fight Dollymans Farm”. In short, this is another site in the metropolitan green belt, slap bang between the two largest towns in my constituency, namely Raleigh and Wickford.

During the 2024 general election campaign, I warned about Bloor Homes, which has a reputation as a highly aggressive developer and, it must be said, treated my former constituents appallingly in a proposed development of some 660 homes at Ashingdon, which is now on the eastern fringe of my constituency. That development was rightly opposed by Rochford district council, but Bloor subsequently won at appeal, where—among other things—Rochford district council’s hired transport consultant mysteriously changed sides the night before the public inquiry commenced.

As part of its proposals, Bloor offered a number of section 106 commitments, including a new doctor’s surgery on the site. Some two years later, not one brick has been laid to that end. Despite my attempts to raise this matter with the integrated care board on several occasions prior to the boundary changes, there is no sign whatsoever of Bloor undertaking any proactive activity to keep its word about the GP surgery. To me, that sounds a powerful warning regarding its proposals at Dollymans farm.

In essence, Bloor now envisions initially building 1,300 dwellings on the Dollymans farm site. Its proposals for Dollymans farm are a Trojan horse. The site is firmly within the metropolitan green belt and would represent completely inappropriate urban sprawl. I remind the Minister that paragraph 142 of the national planning policy framework—the so-called planning bible, which I am sure he now knows off by heart—states:

“The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open”.

To allow development at Dollymans farm would be utterly contrary to that fundamental tenet of the NPPF.

The 1,300 homes initially proposed take up only a fraction of the land on the whole Dollymans farm site, as was confirmed at a recent public consultation exercise that the company held at Rawreth village hall and that I attended. One need only take a single glance at the proposed site plan to see that this proposal is a Trojan horse, and that if the 1,300 dwellings are approved, further applications for thousands more on the same site will no doubt follow. We simply do not possess the transport, medical or educational infrastructure to cope with urban sprawl on this scale, about half a mile from the Wick. As the local MP, I intend to fight these totally unsustainable proposals tooth and nail.

Because of so-called devolution, the Labour Government have cancelled the local elections in Essex. However, there is a by-election in the Wickford Park ward on Thursday 26 June, and those Wickford residents who are lucky enough to have a vote can use it on Thursday to protest against Bloor Homes’ completely unsustainable proposals to build so many homes in such an inappropriate location. I therefore urge my constituents—whatever their personal politics might be—to vote for the Conservative candidate, Lewis Hooper, on Thursday in order to demonstrate to Bloor Homes that we really mean business, and we do not want its development at Dollymans farm.

Perhaps the most egregious example of attempts to overdevelop my constituency relates to the proposed new town on the border between Southend and Rochford, in the area around Bournes Green. In essence, the proposal is for around 10,000 dwellings, 5,000 on either side of the Rochford-Southend border. In answer to a question to the Deputy Prime Minister on Monday 7 April 2025, she confirmed to me in the Commons that those dwellings on the Rochford side would be, in her words, “above and beyond” the mandatory housing target—which is already over 10,000 dwellings—that Rochford district residents are being threatened with by this current Labour Government. For the record, I am completely opposed to these proposals as well.

However, I particularly wish to draw to the Minister’s attention the fact that there appear to have been some serious irregularities in how all of this was proposed, and I would be grateful for his close attention to them. When the original expression of interest was sent in some months ago, Rochford district council was something of a rainbow coalition, but led by the Liberal Democrat group. It transpires that the expression of interest that was sent to the Department—the new towns taskforce—was never approved by any committee of the council, let alone by the full council itself. There is even some confusion about whether or not the leader of the council, who was then Councillor James Newport, actively endorsed the proposal. In short, the whole initiative appears to have been effectively officer-led and officer-dominated.

Since then, the leadership of Rochford district council has changed hands, as the Liberal Democrat group effectively collapsed and is now divided into various factions, some of whom no longer identify as Liberal Democrats. I shall not try the Minister’s patience with all the twists and turns in this process, but none the less, suffice to say that at times it has been like something out of Gilbert and Sullivan.

The new Conservative-led administration, working with Rochford District Residents and several others, is attempting to bring stability to the council. At a meeting of the planning policy committee on 11 June, the council formally decided to withdraw its support for the expression of interest as submitted to the new towns taskforce. In other words, Rochford has withdrawn from the proposed new town—a decision that I wholeheartedly support, as we just do not have the infrastructure to cope with it. Moreover, in her speech to that committee, the redoubtable Councillor Danielle Belton said the following about how the EOI was submitted in the first place:

“This is about transparency and doing right by the communities we serve. So finally, I should add that as the incoming Leader of Rochford District Council, I’m very concerned about what appears to have happened here—but I think it is important to establish the facts and learn from them. So, for that purpose, I will shortly be establishing an independent, externally-led investigation, to get to the bottom of all this and how, exactly, this submission came to be sent in the first place. We will then report the findings of that investigation to Full Council—and via them to our residents—in due course.”

Given that an external investigation has now been initiated, I am sure the Minister will agree that it would not be appropriate for me to comment further in detail; suffice to say at this stage that something appears to have gone seriously wrong in how the expression of interest was submitted, which is even more reason for the council rightfully to withdraw from the whole process.

Before leaving this topic, I should perhaps add in passing that there are emerging rumours that Brentwood borough council—which shares the same chief executive as Rochford, Mr Jonathan Stephenson—has also submitted an EOI for a new town, but for far larger numbers than were envisaged for the Rochford-Southend equivalent. I merely observe that there appears to be a bit of a pattern here. I will leave that for my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart)—he is in his place in the Chamber, listening to this news about his constituency—to pursue with Brentwood borough council, and no doubt eventually with the Minister on a separate occasion.

To summarise, 24 years’ experience as a constituency MP has taught me that there is such a thing as good development, but that works only if it is something that is done with people, rather than to people. My genuine fear—I hope the Minister will appreciate what I am saying—is that Labour’s top-down approach, from both central Government and Labour-led Basildon council, very much appears to be doing things to people, rather than with them.

I was elected to Parliament to represent my constituents, and I can assure the Minister that Essex people are not slow in putting across their point of view, as my email inbox regularly testifies.

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

indicated assent.

[Mr Francois]

My hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar is nodding his assent.

We do accept there has to be some new house building in our county, but not on the scale that the Government propose in order to meet a random ideological target of 1.5 million homes, even at the risk of materially undermining the quality of life of people who live in Essex already.

Finally, even if the Minister does not agree with me today, having known him for some time, I hope that he will at least respect that my concerns are genuine, and I hope that he will take at least some notice of the points that I have made this afternoon on behalf of the constituents who kindly re-elected me recently.

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

Let me begin by congratulating the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) on securing this debate. While I may disagree with a number of the arguments he made, for reasons I will expand upon in due course, I know that he speaks with genuine conviction on behalf of those he represents, and no one can doubt his commitment to his constituency.

In the time available to me, I intend to touch on all the substantive issues that the right hon. Gentleman raised, although I will not go into individual planning applications, for reasons that he will understand. I start by reminding the House about the problem that the Government are working to resolve. It is not, I believe, in doubt that England is in the grip of an acute and entrenched housing crisis. To ensure that we have a planning system that is geared towards meeting housing need in full, the Government introduced a new standard method for assessing local housing need as part of the revised national planning policy framework we published in December, and we made that standard method mandatory.

That standard method now relies on a baseline, set at a percentage of existing housing stock levels, to better reflect housing pressures across the country, and uses a stronger affordability multiplier to focus additional growth on those places facing the biggest affordability challenges —south-east Essex would be one of those. We have been entirely open that that will mean that all parts of the country, including Essex, must play their part. I appreciate that some right hon. and hon. Members simply do not want to see housing growth in their constituencies—I do not name the right hon. Gentleman in this respect—and some may even question whether housing need exists on the scale that it does, and that the Government are clear that it does. However, the Government are clear that we must have ambitious targets to begin fixing the housing crisis afflicting our country, and that decisions made locally should be about how to meet housing needs, not whether to do so at all.

Turning briefly to local plans, the plan-led approach is and must remain the cornerstone of our planning system. As I know the right hon. Gentleman understands, due to the Secretary of State’s quasi-judicial role in the planning system, I am unable to comment on the details of his, or any other, specific local plan. However, I want to underline that the best way of allowing communities to shape development in their area is to have an up-to-date local plan that ensures the provision of supporting infrastructure, so that development proceeds in a sustainable manner. In the absence of an up-to-date plan, there is a high likelihood that development will come forward on a piecemeal and speculative basis, with reduced public engagement and fewer guarantees that it will make the most of an area’s potential.

Having failed to adopt a plan since 1998, Basildon now has one of oldest local plans in the country, a state of affairs that is—I put this as diplomatically as I possibly can—detrimental to the residents of Rayleigh and Wickford. So I am pleased that the new leadership at Basildon council is seeking to address the failures of its predecessors by bringing forward a new local plan, premised on meeting housing need. I want to make it clear that I expect their neighbours at Rochford to progress their local plan, and consult later this year, in line with the updated plan timetable.

To support local planning authorities in their efforts, the Government are awarding £28 million of new funding. As part of that, Rochford and Basildon councils were each awarded approximately £228,000 for local plan delivery, and £70,000 for support with the costs of undertaking a green-belt review. It is now each authority’s responsibility to ensure that their plans unlock growth and secure the housing, jobs and infrastructure their local people deserve.

Turning next to the process of plan making, which is important in regard to some of the issues that the right hon. Gentleman raised, national planning policy is clear that the standard method should be used by local authorities to inform the preparation of their local plans. Once local housing need has been assessed, authorities should make an assessment of the number of new homes that can be provided in their area. This should be justified on the basis of evidence of land availability and constraints on development—for example, in national landscapes—and any other relevant matters. Planning inspectors will consider those issues if they are raised when the plan is submitted to them.

We expect local authorities to explore all options to deliver the homes that their communities need, including maximising the use of brownfield land, working with neighbouring authorities and, where necessary, reviewing green-belt land. When allocating land, the first port of call must be previously developed land. I put on record again that this Government are fully committed to a brownfield-first approach to development. That is why we made changes to the revised national planning policy framework last year to place an even stronger emphasis on the value of brownfield land development.

As the right hon. Gentleman will know, in September last year we published a working paper on a brownfield passport to explore how further to prioritise and accelerate development on brownfield land and ensure that the default answer to suitable proposals on such land is a simple and straightforward “yes”.

Just last month, we published a working paper exploring ways that we can speed up the build-out of consented sites, including brownfield sites, so they are delivered as quickly as possible. On the right hon. Gentleman’s point about the existing developer contribution system, we are committed to strengthening that to ensure that councils are able to negotiate properly on what public gain can come through the developer contribution system, and to hold developers to account for the commitments they make. However, we know that there is simply not enough brownfield land in the country to deliver the volume of homes that working people need, let alone enough sites that are viable and in the right location. That brings me to the green belt.

The Government are committed to preserving green belts, which have served England’s towns and cities well over many decades, not least in checking the unrestricted sprawl of large, built-up areas, and in preventing neighbouring towns from merging into one another. We have not changed the five purposes of the green belt that are set out in paragraph 143 of the national planning policy framework, and we do not propose to alter its general extent. Instead, our reforms replace a haphazard approach with a strategic and targeted approach to green-belt land designation and release. As a result of our changes, the national policy now includes a clear direction that where development on the green belt is necessary, it should be directed towards the least valuable parts of the green belt: previously developed or low-quality grey-belt land.

The sustainability of sites must be prioritised, and local authorities must pay particular attention to transport connections when considering whether grey-belt land is sustainably located. Because we recognise the value that the public place on the green belt, we have taken steps to ensure that any necessary development on land released from it must deliver high levels of affordable housing; the provision of new—or improvements to—existing green spaces that are accessible to the public; and the necessary improvements to local infrastructure to ensure that residents benefit. Those new golden rules, which are the mechanism by which we will deliver that public gain, will apply where a major housing development is proposed on green-belt land, but I should be clear that the requirement for a high level of affordable housing is for green-belt land specifically, regardless of whether it is released through plan-making or subject to a planning application.

[Mr Francois]

Am I right to say that the Minister described sustainability, particularly for green-belt developments, as a golden rule? I understand that the Planning Inspectorate is beginning to take that approach too. Could he quickly confirm that I heard that correctly?

[Matthew Pennycook]

In judging particular applications, particularly when local authorities seek to release land as grey-belt land, they do have to have sustainability as a concern. When cases go to the Planning Inspectorate—for example, on appeal—all these matters will be considered, but the right hon. Gentleman can find the definition of what needs to be considered in the NPPF. I am more than happy to point him to that.

I turn very briefly to nature, because the right hon. Gentleman did mention the environment. Our reforms will help to deliver the homes and development that our country needs, but we have been very clear that these must not come at the expense of the natural environment or rural communities. We are clear that policies and decisions should recognise the intrinsic character of the countryside, and we are maintaining the strong protections for the best and most versatile agricultural land. We have preserved protections for high-quality green-belt land, and for land safeguarded for environmental reasons, such as national landscapes. As I have said, we are ensuring that major new developments in the green belt deliver more accessible green space and support nature recovery.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman once again for sharing his concerns on this matter with the House. While I appreciate that there is a principled and strongly felt difference of opinion between him and me on these matters, I trust that I have clearly laid out the Government’s position. As ever, I would be more than happy to speak to him outside the Chamber, and to discuss any issues of local concern.

Question put and agreed to.