Save our Greenbelt (Slyne with Hest & Bolton Le Sands Action Group)
- by: Jules Farrer
- recipient: Andrew Dobson - Chief Officer (Regeneration and Planning) Lancaster City Council
We only have a few weeks to do this!
The current planning review of green belt areas north of Lancaster could mean that our local green belt is declassified in order to make way for 500 new houses. We need to voice our opinions now, at this stage to maintain the status our green belt area and why it was set up initially. 500 new abodes would change the nature of small towns like Slyne, Hest Bank and Bolton-le-Sands, destroying their unique characters by submerging them under one, continuous urban sprawl from Lancaster to Carnforth increasing the problems that our already over-subscribed services are struggling to cope with.
If you live in or around Slyne, Hest Bank, Bolton le Sands or any of the surrounding areas. If you are concerned about keeping the area that GB4 covers as Green Belt or if you have an interest, domestic, commercial or otherwise in the GB4 Greenbelt area, please sign this petition.
Planning and Regeneration
Lancaster City Council
Town Hall
Dalton Square
Lancaster
LA1 1PJ
planningpolicy@lancaster.gov.uk
Date:
Dear Sir/Madam
I am writing with regard to the City Council’s proposal to use Green Belt land between Slyne with Hest and Bolton le Sands (GB4) to build 500 houses. I was shocked to find that the council are still considering using green belt land in order to fulfil their estimations of housing need. I would draw your attention to the following points.
Only last year, residents, after consultation, rejected such a scheme. Should the council not represent local views rather than dictate to those whom it says it represents?
The Scheme is in direct contravention of national government policy which states‘ Unmet housing need is unlikely to outweigh the harm done to the Green Belt’, (NPPF). The Prime Minister stated on 19th April 2015 (interview with Andrew Motion) ‘The combination of the National Planning Policy Framework and the Local Plans provide strong protections against green belt development. Councils are exempt from meeting local housing need if constraints like green belt make it impossible.’ David Cameron also stated ‘ I am a country man and I will protect the Green Belt’.
The proposal contradicts local policy – the last local plan (2008), stated ‘the purpose of Green Belt is primarily to prevent the built up areas of Lancaster, Morecambe and Carnforth from merging into one urban area, losing their separate identities and absorbing Bolton-le-Sands, Hest Bank and Slyne. Green Belts should, wherever possible, be permanent and remain protected for the forseeable future. The settlements within the Green Belt, Bolton-le-Sands, Hest Bank and Slyne; will be protected from large scale development and will not be allowed to expand beyond their present boundaries into open countryside’ (5.1.4). Nothing has changed since 2008. GB4 was included in the North Lancashire Green Belt to ensure Slyne with Hest and Bolton-le-Sands retained their separate and distinctive village identities and rural environment. Today this green belt land continues to enable the two villages to flourish as separate communities.
GB4, fulfils all five purposes that green belt land should as detailed in the NPPF, paragraph 80. 1. It checks the ‘unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas’. 2. It ‘prevents neighbouring settlements from merging into one another’. 3. It ‘assists in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment’. 4. It ‘preserves the setting and special character of historic settlements’. 5. It ‘assists in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of other urban land.’
Moreover GB4 is not a sustainable site in planning terms. In the local vicinity there are very few work places or sites for future employment opportunities, neighbouring schools are full, as are GP surgeries, neither are there any large retail outlets. Thus new residents would need to commute to work and to access other essential services. Current bus services would not cope. 500 homes would mean potentially 1,000 extra cars (2000 more car journeys a day). Inevitably, air quality would be adversely affected. Traffic on the A6 in either direction from the proposed development site is already extremely heavy, especially at peak times. Bottomdale Road, Manor Lane, Hanging Green Lane, Hasty Brow and the two narrow canal bridges are already subjected to dangerous traffic levels. New residents would inevitably use the Manor Lane route as a cut through to reach Morecambe further exacerbating congestion. Congestion around both schools is already a problem and safety concern.
There are far more viable alternatives to this proposal. Development to the south of Lancaster would not be constrained by Green Belt restrictions and links to the M6 there are excellent, as are those to the city. Development in this area would be sustainable. The NPPF states that local planning authorities ‘should consider the consequences for sustainable development of channelling development towards urban areas inside the Green Belt boundary…(section 9, paragraph 84). To conclude, the GB4 proposal flies in the face of local and national policy. It is in an unsustainable location. Important Green Belt land would be lost, Bolton-le-Sands and Slyne-with-Hest would merge, the setting of the two villages distorted and changed forever and the march of urban sprawl across the rural north of Lancashire would be catalysed into full force with no end in sight.
The council must seek to fulfil their housing targets in line with Government policy and thereby promote sustainable development, development that is in harmony with the wishes of local residents and does not destroy Green Belt that totally fulfils its remit.
Kind regards
Signed:
Name:
Address:
By signing, you accept Care2's Terms of Service.
You can unsub at any time here.
Having problems signing this? Let us know.