
How Labour is destroying the British village
The endearing charm and blissful way of life, however, is edging closer to extinction.
Labour's housebuilding drive threatens to 'bulldoze' Britain's villages to create mega-villages, loosening their sense of community and, perhaps, fracturing their soul.
In her quest for 1.5 million new homes by 2029, Angela Rayner, the Housing Secretary, has cranked up the pressure on rural communities to build, while relaxing targets for major cities, including London.
This could have a devastating effect on the unique nature of our villages. Blake Stephenson, Tory MP, recently told the Commons how villages in his Mid Bedfordshire constituency are at risk from the 'creeping spread of urban sprawl' that threatens to 'merge them into a conglomerate mass of development'.
His fears come amid the Government's plan to strip back development protections in the green belt. Villages would no longer be designated as 'historic', which grants them extra safeguards, while a block on 'unrestricted sprawl' around rural settlements will also be removed. In fact, the Government's proposals stipulate the importance of preventing neighbouring towns from merging, but do not offer the same protection for villages.
A bid to boost village protections was launched by opposition MPs last month, but the motion was voted down – paving the way for the identity and heritage of England's classic villages to be lost.
'Changing beyond recognition'
Two weeks after Stephenson outlined his concerns for Bedfordshire in Parliament, we're standing in the village of Steppingley, a sleepy green belt settlement where you'd half expect to bump into Midsomer Murders' DCI Tom Barnaby. Dog walkers stop to chat with each other, the church bells chime on the hour and the pub will open at midday.
The pub, church and village hall are clustered together, while an Indian restaurant lies on the periphery. The average house sold for £470,000 last year.
Home to little more than 200 residents and comprised of just a few roads, it is usually far from the news agenda. But with the Government determined to build millions of homes, Steppingley is one of the potential 'conglomerate mass' victims Stephenson fears for.
'It's places like this which are in danger,' he says. 'England is changing beyond all recognition and most villages are getting a lot of housing.'
In what was believed to be a record for public engagement, more than 5,000 objection letters were sent to Central Bedfordshire council over plans to build 170 homes on fields between the town of Flitwick and Steppingley.
The proposals, which would have shrunk the gap between the town and village to less than half a mile, were refused by the council's planning committee last month. But there is little cause for celebration.
'It will go to the Planning Inspectorate and be overturned,' Stephenson concedes. 'That's another final decision which will be taken out of the hands of the local community. It feels like the strong arm of the Government is going to take over any form of control.
'Once one field becomes housing, it sets a precedent. One is developed, and then the next and the next again. Flitwick is getting closer to Steppingley.'
Due to the Government's housebuilding narrative, villagers fear there is a 'sense of inevitability' that they will soon be swallowed up into one mega-village that has lost its identity.
'I feel like I could cry,' one declares. 'It feels wherever you go around here there is a threat of further development.'
'They've just built that monstrosity over there,' says 65-year-old Mark Gale, pointing to a care complex as he surveys the view across fields from Steppingley to Flitwick. 'Then there's a new ugly crematorium there, and they've just built a housing estate down the bottom there called Steppingley Gardens but it's nothing to do with Steppingley.
'I've been here 25 years and it's very nice living in a village, nice and peaceful. I don't want it to become like any other town.
'Without a doubt it would lose its identity. It's a tight-knit community and I don't think anyone here wants that to change.'
'Villages are losing their souls'
It is that sense of village community which feels endangered in modern day Britain – one that is becoming critically endangered thanks to an ever-growing population and the continued struggle for rural businesses and services.
The prospect of mass housebuilding in the village of Wolvey, Warwickshire, may spell the end for one of its local stores if a supermarket is built at one of three new estates proposed by Rugby Borough Council. 'We have worked hard to grow the shop at a time when many village stores are closing. Clearly we would not be able to compete with a multiple retailer outlet,' its manager Ian Nicholson posted on a village Facebook page.
Opponents claim the green belt village will balloon in size by 80pc should it become victim to housebuilding 'desecration' of 710 new homes put forward by the council in its proposed Local Plan.
Rugby Borough Council said it is 'following an evidence-based process of site selection... to bring forward a plan that can be sound and ensure development is properly planned'.
A spokesman said: 'For years in Rugby borough, most new housing has been built in the town, and rural housing would provide more housing choice in areas that are popular places to live.'
The concerns in Wolvey paint a picture for villages across the country. Councils are grappling with huge new housing targets imposed upon them by Westminster. Rural local authorities have been saddled with vast increases to their delivery numbers, while targets for major cities have retreated.
Kevin Hollinrake, the shadow housing secretary, told Parliament that 'raising targets by up to 400pc in rural areas while simultaneously reducing them by over 11pc in London, 30pc in Birmingham and Newcastle, and over 50pc in Coventry is unfair and wrong-headed.'
It is that added pressure on rural areas which will do little to safeguard the dwindling community feel. Village amenities are sparse and have been in a continual decline for decades. Only a third of the rural population now live within three miles of a bank, while closed shops are being taken 'away from public service provision' and transferred to private use, according to a recent Parliamentary research paper.
In his latest season of Clarkson's Farm, new publican Jeremy Clarkson bemoans how 'villages are losing their soul'.
'You don't have a village doctor any more. He's in a health centre 30 miles away and you can't get an appointment. There's no village bobby on the beat. There's no village vicar, there's no village shop, there's no village school.
'If we end up at a point where there's no village pub then what is a village? It's just some houses. Pubs are the hub and it should always be that way.'
While Clarkson has breathed new life into his pub in Asthall, others around the country are falling by the wayside.
A recent victim is The Crown in the Bedfordshire village of Shillington, a former local for Stephenson. '[Chancellor] Rachel Reeves's Budget didn't help at all, with National Insurance increasing. The cost of doing business just goes through the roof. Just look behind us, the evidence is there.' In what would have been peak lunchtime hours a few weeks ago, the only noise now is the swinging pub sign squeaking in the wind.
'Footfall is a challenge for village pubs, you've now got to be a destination pub. They are the centres of community, so it's such a shame they're closing.' Six pubs closed every week in 2024, according to the British Beer and Pub Association.
'We've got a gun to our heads over housing delivery'
In the Kent village of Littlebourne, three miles east of Canterbury, residents are fearful of the future.
Housebuilder Gladman had a 115-home project rejected by the previous Tory administration at Canterbury City Council in 2021 amid concerns over the 'urbanisation of the countryside'.
Fast-forward to today and the proposed scheme has almost trebled in size, swelling to 300 homes. The council, now led by Labour, conceded that the new homes would 'harm' the village aesthetic, yet an officer's recommendation of approval for the significantly larger scheme was sent to the planning committee in May.
At the meeting, one Tory councillor complained that the committee had 'a gun to our head to allow more of these houses' as a result of the nationwide push to build.
The council is in a 'state of presumption in favour of development' because of its failure to hit government housing targets in recent years. This means the authority has to look more favourably on housing applications they would otherwise refuse. A decision on the scheme was deferred until a later date as councillors await more mitigation details from the developers.
Peter Farrow, of Littlebourne Parish Council, said: 'The village has had a lot of extra housing in recent years and this would be a huge increase. There isn't a reasonable excuse for bearing down on us.
'There is a lot of pressure coming from the people in Westminster who are really pushing. So I suspect this Labour council probably feels under more pressure than the previous council did.'
And it's not just the pressure of housebuilding which is worrying England's villages. The ever-increasing spread of solar farms risks surrounding rural settlements.
Residents in 23 villages between Long Stratton and Diss in Norfolk are believed to have been sent letters, telling them their land may be 'required' for what would be the country's biggest solar farm.
As the plans are deemed a nationally significant infrastructure project the developer, Island Green Power, could have the power to compulsorily purchase land.
Carpets of solar panels are poised to be installed across almost 500 square miles of Britain between now and 2035, as Labour ramps up its net zero plans. Figures released by the Government show that central England will be hit hardest by the solar blitz, with the greatest concentration stretching from Lincolnshire to South Wales.
'Labour is going toe-to-toe with communities'
Pick almost any village in the country, and you'll likely hear tales of housebuilding woe and how it looks almost unrecognisable from years ago. Concerns over expansion aren't anything new.
Yet Stephenson believes the rhetoric from the Government is putting tails up.
Law changes proposed in the Planning and Infrastructure Billinclude the introduction of a national scheme of delegation. This will determine which planning applications should be decided by local officers, and which should go to a public committee. The changes are expected to lead to fewer applications being discussed in public to speed up the planning system and the housebuilding process.
Meanwhile, ecology surveys to mitigate the impact on Britain's dwindling wildlife will no longer be mandatory. Earlier this year, Reeves told developers that they need not worry about 'bats and newts' in a bid to cut red tape.
'You don't solve issues by having a fight with village communities, but that's exactly what Labour is doing,' Stephenson says. 'They are going toe-to-toe with communities, telling them 'we don't care what you think, we're going to build anyway'.
'They've decided they have the power, they have the majority, they can fight who they want.' And our villages may be the ultimate casualties.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Independent
17 minutes ago
- The Independent
Palestinian state recognition is a one shot opportunity for Starmer – but what does he want to achieve?
Keir Starmer will go into his emergency cabinet meeting this week under immense political pressure to change government policy and recognise a Palestinian state. The question which will be troubling the prime minister though will not be whether he wants to recognise Palestine as a country, but determining when formal recognition will have maximum effect. The problem is that recognising a state is a one-time move. Unlike a Brexit agreement or a trade deal, there is no going back to rework some of the details further down the line – with this, there is no room for error. That means for Sir Keir to do it he has to be sure it will achieve the goals he wants. The issue will be whether solving a political problem is more important than using it to achieve peace. Current policy The current policy is to support a two-state solution and to recognise a Palestinian state as part of the peace process - without specifying when this would be. Sir Keir has gone further and said in a strongly worded statement on Thursday that a Palestinian state is 'an inalienable right' of the Palestinian people. For some this was taken as a strong hint that he is edging closer to actual formal recognition. The reason it is important is that once a state is formally recognised, it gains diplomatic status and can in theory be recognised by international bodies – so the move would not be purely symbolic. Added to that, the UK's historic status as the former colonial power which effectively created the modern state of Israel through the Balfour Declaration gives recognising a Palestinian state added symbolic weight. Political pressure President Emmanuel Macron's decision on Friday to announce that France would be the first G7 country to recognise Palestinian statehood has ramped up pressure on Sir Keir to follow suit. Already his cabinet is split over the issue, with figures like justice secretary Shabana Mahmood and deputy prime minister Angela Rayner pushing for recognition, while others like chancellor Rachel Reeves are more sceptical of an early move. Recognition is backed by a clear majority in the Labour Party though, and Jeremy Corbyn's new party on the left – which has made Israel- Palestine its primary policy area – adds even more pressure. With more than 200 MPs from nine different parties signing a letter backing the proposition there is also clearly an appetite for it in Westminster. But weighing on the other side is Labour Friends of Israel (LFI), which is a group made more powerful by the need within Labour to repair the damage of the antisemitism which was allowed to flourish under Corbyn's leadership. It also has the support of a number of senior cabinet members. LFI backs a two-state solution and eventual recognition of a Palestinian state but warns that if the UK goes for recognition early, it will waste an opportunity to maximise the effect. All about Trump Over the weekend minister James Murray pointed out that 140 countries have recognised a Palestinian state, but it has had no effect on the peace process. There is a sense that it will destroy what is left of the UK's dwindling influence with Israel, although given Benjamin Netanyahu's attitude to international criticism that ship may have already sailed. The problem is that US secretary of state Marco Rubio was very critical of France's statement last week, and there was speculation that Starmer did not want to broach the recognition question until he had his bilateral with Donald Trump in Scotland out of the way first. But the UK government now seems to understand that the only way to get Israel back in line and for the peace process to restart is for Trump's administration to force everyone's hand. There is a danger that if he goes ahead with recognition of a Palestinian state, he may lose that last bit of influence he has on the White House. But in the end Sir Keir is a prime minister respected abroad but losing control at home. He may decide that the political problems recognition solves domestically are worth doing it even if it has little or no impact on the peace process.


The Independent
17 minutes ago
- The Independent
New poll shows the gap between Jeremy Corbyn and Keir Starmer
New polling indicates Jeremy Corbyn is considerably more popular among 18-24 year-olds than Sir Keir Starmer. Corbyn holds an approval rating of plus 18 within this demographic, contrasting with Sir Keir's minus 30. Despite this, both leaders maintain nearly identical overall approval ratings among the wider public, with Sir Keir on minus 40 and Mr Corbyn on minus 39. The survey suggests the government 's decision to extend voting rights to 16 and 17-year-olds could inadvertently benefit Corbyn's newly launched political party. Sir Keir Starmer's overall approval has reached a new low, with his government perceived as chaotic, while Corbyn's new political venture has been criticised by some as lacking seriousness.


Telegraph
18 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Recognising Palestine will not solve Labour's electoral woes
In Scottish Labour ranks there used to be a saying: you can't out-nat the Nats. This was usually in response to armchair strategists who expressed the view that if only Labour in Scotland would embrace a more robust form of devolution – the 'full fiscal autonomy' model, or devo max, as it was called – then those who yearned for independence would consider supporting us. Naturally, such self-delusion was almost childishly easy to dismiss: why would nationalists vote for a unionist party that denied them the very thing they wanted? Why settle for 90 per cent of your ambition when an alternative party (the SNP) were promising to deliver 100 per cent? Labour's current troubles over whether to recognise Palestine formally as a nation reeks of the same cynicism and strategic folly. There are other hurdles to navigate before we even get to Labour's (relatively unimportant) internal squabbles: how do you recognise a country that doesn't exist? What is the point of recognising even a hypothetical country when no one can agree what its borders should be, where its capital is and who represents its leader or its government? More importantly, how would recognition by the UK aid the peace process? It is far more likely to do the opposite, since Hamas would (correctly) see it as a reward for the grotesque act of barbarism they inflicted on Israeli civilians on October 7, 2023, which led directly to the calamity now befalling their own people. Labour MPs, already nervous about their chances of re-election in a few years' time, believe that their chances of survival depend upon the recovery of their party's support among Britain's Muslim voters and recognition of Palestine, even though it can have no practical beneficial impact except in terms of propaganda. They are understandably concerned, not only about the imminent emergence of Jeremy Corbyn's latest political party – one that will specifically target voters disillusioned by Labour's current approach to Israel and Palestine and whose formation has been largely motivated by that conflict – but by others on the Left seeking to exploit the current conflict for their own electoral ends, like the Greens. So put yourself in the shoes of a British Muslim voter, one who has traditionally backed Labour, mainly because of its relaxed approach to mass immigration, not least from your ancestral home country. Two things have happened: first, the Conservatives have proved that Labour does not have a monopoly on support for mass immigration without the consent of the indigenous population. In fact, while in office they established that they were more enthusiastic about an open-door immigration policy than even Labour. And second, the conflict in Gaza exposed Labour as fair-weather friends to both Israel and Palestine. If, as Nye Bevan once said, those who cannot ride two horses at the same time shouldn't be in the circus, then the current administration might have to retire from the ring. The government started out supporting Israel in the face of the Islamist threat. Then, once in office, after it recognised the threat to its electoral strongholds from independent pro-Gaza candidates, it pivoted and jumped on the International Criminal Court bandwagon by allowing arrest warrants to be issued for Israel's prime minister for alleged 'war crimes'. Yet still ministers resist calls from shouty middle-class people in our city centres every weekend to boycott, disinvest and sanction Israel. Still they defend Israel's 'right to exist' – a point of principle that few pro-Palestinian protesters would concede. And now numerous Labour MPs actually seem to believe that recognising Palestine will bring all those disillusioned Muslim and far-Left voters home to Labour. But why would they come back? Why return to a party that, however much it has served their purposes in past decades, is now prevaricating over the one conflict in the region they have chosen to feel strongly about? Just as Scottish Labour could only hope to attract the support of nationalists by fully signing up to the fight for independence, so Labour cannot hope to thwart the appeal of Corbyn's new party on this issue – unless it follows Palestinian recognition, from the river to the sea, with a refusal to recognise Israel's right to exist or defend itself. It would also have to ban all Israeli imports and ban British companies from exporting to that country. Even then, would those lost voters return to Labour in big enough numbers? Why support a 'Johnny-come-lately' to the Palestinian cause when Jeremy has a proud record of describing Hezbollah and Hamas terrorists as his 'friends'? Beat that, Keir Starmer! The Prime Minister mustn't even try. You can't beat the far Left at their own game, at least not while hoping to retain the much more centrist and sensible voters who put you in office. The various weirdos, extremists and weekend paper-sellers that will form the activist base of Corbyn's new party have a lifetime's experience in opposing the only liberal democracy in the Middle East and yearn to see it replaced by the kind of Islamist dictatorship that has brought so much misery to ordinary Palestinians. Far better for Starmer to take the side of Israel as our long-term ally in western democracy's fight against worldwide Islamism.