Bradley has challenged the Government to "give residents a greater say in shaping the future of their town and villages.”
Speaking during a debate on the Second Reading of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill in the House of Commons yesterday (September 2nd), the local MP warned the Government that their plans “strips local people of their voice and runs counter to the very principle of devolution.”
The Bill would allow the Government to impose new governance structures, including strategic authorities and regional mayors, without local agreement.
The Government is currently embarking on the process of local government reorganisation, with all six of Worcestershire's District Councils, along with the County Council, set to be abolished and replaced with either one Worcestershire unitary council or two unitary councils in the north and south of the county. Bradley urged the Government to ensure any change to local councils must be made with the full consent of local residents.
He raised concerns that residents already “feel powerless,” especially after the Government imposed an 85% increase in Bromsgrove and the Village’s housebuilding target.
Bradley said:
“Local democracy is already being eroded by the unprecedented housing targets being forced on communities, with local objections routinely brushed aside. Residents feel powerless in shaping the future of their towns and villages, and trust in Government is draining away rapidly. This Bill will only deepen that resentment because Ministers promise devolution, but communities will actually receive less say while being treated as little more than an extension of nearby major cities.
“Birmingham, a city with 140 hectares of brownfield land and established infrastructure, is seeing its housing targets cut by over 30%. Meanwhile, in Bromsgrove and the Villages, where 89% of the land is greenbelt, targets have soared by a staggering 85%. That is not sensible planning; it is an attempt to urbanise rural areas against the will of local residents. The Government should let local people have more of a say in what the housing target should be.
During his speech, Bradley once again made the case for One Worcestershire unitary council to be formed.
“If our current councils in Worcestershire are to be sidelined, it should be for a singular Worcestershire council to come into existence that can deliver value for money to the taxpayer, provide the best possible services and keep decision making local,” Bradley added. “We cannot accept Worcestershire involuntarily becoming an extension of Birmingham in the name of devolution.”
“The Bill’s proposals are modelled on city experiences. Worcestershire is not the same as Birmingham, Manchester or any other big city. We have different needs, different challenges and different priorities. Forcing a city template on to rural areas sidelines communities, strips away their voice and sacrifices the fabric of rural life. Once again, rural and semi-rural residents are treated as an afterthought. Counties shaped by their rural character, such as Worcestershire, are rightly proud of their identities and traditions. If this Bill is to touch our communities, it must first recognise their distinct needs and be rethought to respect them.”
To save the greenbelt, Bradley launched a Parliamentary petition and he’s still urging residents to sign it.
So far the petition has been signed more than 4,400 times, and if you haven’t done so already, residents can sign it by clicking here.
Below you can read Bradley's full remarks from the debate.
"While the current devolution plans in this Bill put politics before people, the Government are pressing ahead with the Bill before the independent adult social care review is published in 2028. I believe that to reorganise local government without first confronting the fundamental crisis in care is to put the cart before the horse. Effective reform cannot be done in isolation. The Local Government Association has been clear in its view that devolution must be aligned with health, police, fire and integrated care board structures, with councils kept central to delivery, accountability and collaboration at every level.
Local consent should be a priority throughout the devolution process. Any change in governance must be made with the full consent of the people affected, yet this Bill allows the Secretary of State to impose new governance structures, including strategic authorities and regional mayors, without local agreement. That strips local people of their voice and runs counter to the very principle of devolution.
Local democracy is already being eroded by the unprecedented housing targets being forced on communities, with local objections routinely brushed aside. Residents feel powerless in shaping the future of their towns and villages, and trust in government is draining away rapidly. This Bill will only deepen that resentment, because Ministers promise devolution, but communities will actually receive less say while being treated as little more than an extension of nearby major cities. Birmingham, a city with 140 hectares of brownfield land and established infrastructure, is seeing its housing targets cut by over 30%. Meanwhile, in my constituency, where 89% of the land is green belt, targets have soared by a staggering 85%. That is not sensible planning; it is an attempt to urbanise rural areas against the will of local residents.
In her opening remarks, the Deputy Prime Minister said that at the minute, too much power is in the hands of the few when it should be in the hands of the many. The Government should therefore let local people have more of a say in what the housing target should be. If our current councils in Worcestershire are to be sidelined, it should be for a singular Worcestershire council to come into existence that can deliver value for money to the taxpayer, provide the best possible services and keep decision making local. We cannot accept Worcestershire involuntarily becoming an extension of Birmingham in the name of devolution.
The Bill’s proposals are modelled on city experiences. Worcestershire is not the same as Birmingham, Manchester or any other big city. We have different needs, different challenges and different priorities. Forcing a city template on to rural areas sidelines communities, strips away their voice and sacrifices the fabric of rural life. Once again, rural and semi-rural residents are treated as an afterthought. Counties shaped by their rural character, such as Worcestershire, are rightly proud of their identities and traditions. If this Bill is to touch our communities, it must first recognise their distinct needs and be rethought to respect them."
