Allison Gardner MP: speeches

Speeches

• 14 Sept 2026 · Water Sector: Public Ownership · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. Severn Trent customers in Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire have seen their bills rise by 22% this year, and they are expected to rise by a further 47% by 2029. At the same time, Severn Trent reported pre-tax profits of £320 million in the last financial year, and the company’s long-term incentive plan could raise the chief exec’s annual remuneration to a staggering £3.1 million. In 2024, Severn Trent was responsible for more than 300 pollution incidents, and in 2023 the company was responsible for over 60,000 sewage overflows. People living on Paddock Rise in Trentham recently had to deal with the most appalling situation of having raw sewage in their street, presenting a serious public health risk. I have raised many times the challenges faced by the village of Upper Tean, including constant flooding, blown manhole covers, the children’s playground and the recreation ground being flooded with sewage water, and dead rivers with no fish. New developments are creating additional challenges. Although water companies are consulted on planning applications, they are under no statutory obligation to ensure that they upgrade their mains infrastructure to meet increasing demand. Developers meet obligations, as they should; water companies should also do so— especially if we intend to build 1.5 million homes. It is fundamentally wrong that my constituents in Stoke-on-Trent South are facing higher water bills and poor services, while profits are siphoned off into the pockets of shareholders and chief execs. Basic necessities that we all need to survive should not be privatised and subject to profit incentives. Water is a basic human right. Our water should be under public ownership, not “control”, whatever that means—I would appreciate it if the Minister could provide clarity on the difference—and we need to listen to the 208,000 people who signed the petition. We need a water renationalisation plan now, and ownership of our water to be returned back to the people of this country and out of the hands of shareholders—owned by us and run for us.

• 3 Sept 2026 · Large-scale Development Masterplans · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for the opportunity to lead this debate on the role of masterplans in large-scale development. This debate will be of particular importance to many of my constituents in Lightwood and surrounding areas, where some 3,000 homes have been allocated through Stoke-on-Trent’s emerging local plan under site BL1. I want to begin by making my position clear: I oppose development of this scale in Lightwood. It is the largest single housing allocation in the entire local plan and would, in practice, create a substantial new community on the edge of the city. Like many constituents who have contacted me, I do not believe that the existing infrastructure, public services and transport network can accommodate development of this scale. I have consistently raised objections to the scale of this proposal. However, I recognise the reality that development is likely to proceed, particularly given that elements of the site are under council ownership. I also believe that the centrally determined housing target for Stoke-on-Trent of 948 homes a year is a little too high, given the site’s tight administrative boundaries and limited land. It is concerning that we have reached the regulation 19 stage of the local plan process without residents having any meaningful detail about how the strategic allocation of 3,000 homes would be delivered. There remains no comprehensive framework setting out infrastructure requirements, no clear understanding of how cumulative impacts will be mitigated and no shared vision about how a development of this scale will integrate with both existing communities and the wider area. What makes this particularly difficult to understand is that residents elsewhere in Stoke-on-Trent have been afforded precisely that opportunity. The council prepared a masterplan for the strategic site at Packmoor, despite it being around a third of the size of the proposed Lightwood allocation. That process provided a clear vision for the site and enabled residents to engage with the overall shape of development before individual planning applications came forward. By contrast, residents in Lightwood are being asked to comment on a strategic allocation of 3,000 homes without the benefit of a comparable masterplan, and without the same level of consultation on how the site will ultimately be delivered. It is a clear example of inconsistency in the planning process. Residents should not receive different levels of engagement, transparency and certainty about the future of their communities simply because they happen to live in different postcodes. When a development is large enough to create an entirely new neighbourhood, it should not be allowed to emerge through a series of disconnected planning applications. It should be planned from the outset through a comprehensive masterplan that establishes a clear vision for the area and provides a framework for future development. In Lightwood’s case, the local planning authority should be taking a proactive role in preparing and co-ordinating such a masterplan. Masterplans are not simply about determining where houses will go. They are about creating successful places and sustainable, accessible communities, both new and existing. They provide the strategic framework that brings together housing, transport, education provision, healthcare capacity, utilities, mains water provided by water companies, environmental enhancement and design principles into a coherent vision for long-term growth. Most importantly, they ensure that supporting infrastructure is planned alongside development, rather than treated as an afterthought once planning applications have already been submitted. In that regard, masterplans are entirely consistent with the ambitions of the national planning policy framework, which seeks to promote sustainable development, effective placemaking and infrastructure-led growth. While national policy recognises the value of masterplans and design codes, their use remains largely discretionary. The experience of Lightwood and Packmoor demonstrates the inconsistency that can result. That is why I believe there is a strong case for a clearer national requirement that developments above an appropriate scale should be supported by a comprehensive masterplan. I am not suggesting that every housing development requires such a masterplan. A scheme involving a few dozen homes is clearly different from a strategic allocation comprising thousands of properties. However, where development may be delivered over many years, involve multiple landowners or developers, and have substantial implications for infrastructure and existing communities, the case for master planning becomes clear. In such circumstances, a comprehensive masterplan should be established before individual planning applications are determined. Without a clear overarching framework, there is a real risk of piecemeal development. Individual planning applications may appear acceptable in isolation, but collectively they can create unintended consequences for transport networks, public services, drainage systems and environmental assets. Opportunities for integrated transport links, co-ordinated infrastructure and high-quality placemaking can easily be lost when development comes forward parcel by parcel. A masterplan provides the framework that ensures every proposal contributes to an agreed vision for the site. It should establish how movement through the site will work, where community facilities will be located, how public transport will be integrated, where drainage infrastructure will be provided, and how development will connect with surrounding neighbourhoods. It should also identify how environmental assets will be protected, enhanced and connected across the site as a whole. That brings me to a particularly important issue: green infrastructure. Green space is often treated as a residual element of development, fitted into whatever land remains after housing numbers have been maximised. A proper masterplan takes the opposite approach; it recognises that accessible green spaces, recreation areas, tree planting and biodiversity corridors are fundamental components of healthy communities. They contribute to physical and mental wellbeing, create opportunities for recreation and social interaction, improve climate resilience and flood mitigation, and help maintain a connection between communities and the natural environment. Green infrastructure cannot be viewed as an optional extra; it is essential and ensures that growth enhances rather than diminishes the places people call home. Infrastructure planning is equally important. Questions about road capacity, public transport provision, walking and cycling routes, school places, healthcare services, utilities and drainage cannot sensibly be addressed on an application-by-application basis. They must be considered collectively, and in the context of both future residents and the communities that already exist around the development. That is particularly important in relation to mains and water infrastructure. I remain concerned that the mains water companies do not upgrade their systems to match the new developments. My village of Upper Tean has frequently had that problem. The developers meet their requirements on mains water, sewage and flood mitigations, but when something hits the mains systems, we get manhole covers blowing out and flooding happening all over. People’s homes get flooded, as well as businesses and play areas, with the ensuing environmental problems. A masterplan should also ensure, if we are serious about creating inclusive communities, the development of accessible homes and communities, including bungalows, so that they meet the needs of those who are ageing and have disabilities or are frail. The English homes study found that 91% of homes do not meet the necessary requirements for wheelchair users to visit, let alone live in them. Data by Habinteg Housing Association, which provides thousands of accessible social homes across the country, shows that wheelchair users could wait up to 47 years for a suitable accessible property to become available. Masterplans can be a valuable way of ensuring that future housing developments meet existing local housing needs, including the estimated 20,000 wheelchair users nationally on local authority housing waiting lists. Currently, fewer than 2% of newbuild homes are bungalows, meaning that most are not fully accessible. Sites such as Lightwood are not a blank canvas. People already live there. They rely on local roads, footpaths, public transport, schools, healthcare services and community facilities. As we work to deliver the homes that this country needs, we must make full use of the planning tools available to ensure those homes become successful communities, accessible to all. I ask the Minister to consider strengthening national planning policy, so that large-scale developments, above an appropriate threshold that can be discussed, are required to have a comprehensive masterplan in place before individual planning applications are brought forward.

• 16 Jul 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Lightwood in my constituency is earmarked in the emerging local plan for a whopping 3,000 new homes. Not only would a development of that size be simply too much for the area, but no masterplan has been brought forward to guide development. Without a proper masterplan, there is a risk of piecemeal development, and my constituents cannot be reassured that there will be the transport, schools, healthcare, protected green spaces and updated water infrastructure that their communities need. Will the Leader of the House make Government time available for a debate on the importance of requiring masterplans for large-scale developments?

• 6 Jul 2026 · Ceramics Industry · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank all the people who signed this petition and commend the hard work done by my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) and all who fought hard for Denby and our ceramics industry. In Stoke-on-Trent South, factories such as Wedgwood and 1882 Ltd have crafted bespoke projects for centuries. Duchess China produces the cups and saucers used here in Parliament, Susan Rose supplied tableware for No. 10 and Caverswall China crafts pieces for Buckingham Palace. It is no wonder that so many of my constituents take great pride in working in the Pots—I see that we have pottery workers here today, including my constituent, Sharon Yates, who created the potter’s pledge led by the GMB. I encourage all to sign it to combat the issue of fakes and dumping. Since being elected, I, along with all my colleagues, have repeatedly raised with Ministers the importance of the ceramic sectors in north Staffordshire. That was to safeguard not only our tableware sector and proud potters’ heritage, but the strategic value of advanced ceramics, which I am pleased to see are now included in the British industrial competitiveness scheme. Regrettably, companies have faced real challenges: Brexit disrupted trade; there has been an influx of imported knock-offs; and energy prices have shot up following the war in Ukraine and the closure of the strait of Hormuz. The petition asks that ceramics be included in the supercharger scheme, and that is an understandable ask, but it does not solely answer all the challenges faced by the sector; nor does it address the future sustainability and the need for transition to low-carbon alternatives. That is why I have previously asked the Government to introduce what I dubbed an “industry energy innovation fund” for gas-intensive industries. As well as funding the capital investment for new technology, whether electric, biofuels or hydrogen kilns, such a fund would provide grants or loans to companies to explore process emissions reduction, artificial intelligence-enabled process optimisation along with processes to recover waste heat and improve energy efficiency. I was delighted that the Government announced a £120 million fund to support the sector in May. Following that announcement, I asked the Chancellor to clarify that the purpose of the fund was to support decarbonisation and innovation. She confirmed that it was indeed to help the sector tackle energy costs, improve energy efficiency and create a sustainable future. Alongside Lucideon and Visk, I want to thank the Henry Royce Institute and David Knowles, along with the TUC, GMB and Russell Hall at Warwick Manufacturing Group, for working alongside me to develop proposals as to how we can deliver a sustainable, energy efficient future using this fund. Can the Minister ensure that the consultation about the design of the fund includes experts such as those mentioned above as well as a variety of small and medium-sized enterprises and organisations including Make UK and Glass Futures, along with the excellent Ceramics UK, which has worked so hard?