Agenda item

To receive a Petition, notification of which has been received by the Chief Executive in accordance with the Council’s Constitution.

In accordance with the Council’s petition scheme, as the petition has over 500 signatures, it will be presented to full Council for debate.

A petition had been submitted which was part online and part on paper.  The online petition alone contained more than the 500 signatures required to trigger an officer report for the petition to be considered at a Council meeting.  

The full wording of the online petition had been circulated to Councillors in advance and read:

“We the undersigned support the campaign both to preserve the green belt status of land (land between Manor Lane, Slyne-with-Hest and Greenwood Drive/Avenue and Pinewood Avenue/Crescent ,Bolton-le-Sands), and to object to its use for development.

We the undersigned petition the council to retain the green belt status of the land between Slyne-with-Hest and Bolton-le-Sands and to reject proposals to build there. We ask that District housing targets are met by using more appropriate and sustainable locations. We would like our petition presented and debated by full council and to be offered an opportunity to present our issue to full council.

The residents of Slyne with Hest and Bolton-le-Sands are passionate and proud of their villages. Each village has a distinct community and gives its residents a strong sense of place.

The retention of the green belt that has so effectively prevented the villages from merging and forming what would be essentially a town larger in population than Carnforth, is absolutely essential.

Both communities strongly opposed development of their green belt in the creation of the last Local Plan and opinions remain just as strong today.

We wish to retain our local green belt to ensure that the historic villages of Slyne-with- Hest and Bolton-le-Sands can continue to exist independently. We wish to safeguard the land for its wildlife, its beautiful views, its capacity to mitigate flooding and to retain our District’s history.

To release this land for development would result in the urban sprawl of Lancaster marching forward virtually unchecked to Carnforth swallowing villages that the north Lancaster green belt was created to preserve. Only 3% of our District is designated as green belt. We do not need to sacrifice this small percentage for development. Developing our stunning piece of local green belt will not produce the truly affordable homes the District needs.

We should be true to our District’s slogan ‘Promoting City, Coast and Countryside.’ Development of our green belt would be in stark contradiction to this.

Councillor Tyldesley, Cabinet Member with special responsibility for Planning, introduced the report and responded to questions from Councillors. She then proposed the recommendations in the report, seconded by Councillor Brookes:

“(1)    That Council receives and notes the petition.

(2)     That planning matters, including any future proposals for the development of this site, would be appropriately considered by the local planning authority, (including by the Planning Regulatory Committee). It would be inappropriate for Council to articulate a view outside of this regulatory process.”

In response to queries from Councillors about the petition should simply be noted, the Mayor clarified that the proposition which had been made formed the response to the petition.

The Mayor called for a debate and the proposition was clearly carried when put to the vote.

Resolved:

(1)     That Council receives and notes the petition.

(2)     That planning matters, including any future proposals for the development of this site, would be appropriately considered by the local planning authority, (including by the Planning Regulatory Committee). It would be inappropriate for Council to articulate a view outside of this regulatory process.