Housing Development: Cumulative Impacts

Richard Foord Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair today, Mr Twigg.

We all recognise the need for genuinely affordable housing, but progress cannot be measured in house numbers alone if it leaves communities worse off. Wing Commander Ian Derbyshire from Payhembury recently contacted me after his wife, who is in her mid-70s, received a letter from her GP surgery in Cullompton to inform her that she had been removed from registration. She had been registered as a patient at Payhembury for over 20 years. Wing Commander Ian and Mrs Derbyshire had written twice to the Cullompton practice to find an explanation for why they had been removed from the surgery’s list, and they were advised to register with a practice that would perhaps be more distant from them. The reason they had to move was simply that new housing had been built between them and the GP surgery to which they were registered.

This is not a unique case. Another resident of Payhembury, aged 89, received an identical letter. It was only after my office made contact with the GP practice that the surgery explained the reason for these residents being reallocated. Mrs Derbyshire has significant memory problems. She finds comfort and reassurance in familiarity, and the prospect of moving GP surgeries, having to retell her medical history, navigating new systems and building trust from scratch fills her with dread. Indeed, this is where joined-up government has to come in, because the NHS knows it is good practice in primary care for patients to see the same doctor over time.

Wing Commander Derbyshire served as an RAF officer for decades. He and his wife moved around the world for 34 years, repeatedly being uprooted by service to our country. Now in later life, when they look for some stability, they are being displaced once more, not by a posting or indeed war, but by a lack of anticipation.

When houses are approved, built and occupied, GP provision lags behind. When surgeries reach breaking point, their current patients pay the price. That cannot be right, particularly in places that have been identified for significant additional housing, as in Cullompton, where we anticipate that over 5,000 new homes will be built as part of Culm garden village in the decades to come.

Under the current planning system, house builders are not automatically required to meet the capital costs associated with additional GP capacity. Local authorities can negotiate section 106 planning obligations with developers to secure financial contributions, but that is not built in. Indeed, these obligations are not obligations; they are discretionary and must meet strict legal tests of relevance, necessity and proportionality. In practice, that means housing growth outpaces the delivery of new or expanded GP facilities in places such as Cullompton.

We must not allow new housing to undermine the provision of healthcare, nor can we allow it to undermine the natural spaces that play a role in keeping people healthy and easing pressure on the health service. A report in The Guardian in October put the UK down as the fifth worst country in Europe for access to green space, because of the loss of it due to development. New housing must not come at the expense of nature or of protected landscapes, and any attempt by the Government to dilute these safeguards will be met with firm and determined opposition. We can and must build new homes for this country, but not by forcing the elderly from their GPs, by eroding our green spaces or by displacing the very communities those homes are meant to serve.