Lancaster vetoes 200 Green Belt homes
Deciding that the 28-acre site was not Grey Belt, city councillors voted against officer recommendation on Monday in refusing Wrenman Strategic Land’s outline application for a neighbourhood off Slyne Road in Bolton-le-Sands.
More than 660 letters of objection to the proposal had been received by the council, including formal objections from Bolton-le-Sands Parish Council and Slyne with Hest Parish Council. There had only been three letters of support.
The crux of the argument against the proposal was its location within the North Lancashire Green Belt.
Opponents said that building 200 homes on the site, which is adjacent to residential developments on its northern and western boundaries, would violate the Green Belt’s purpose of checking unrestricted urban sprawl. This is due to Bolton-le-Sands being considered a large built-up area.
However, when the Lancaster City Council planning officer filed their committee report, they had argued that Bolton-le-Sands was a village and not a large built-up area. Accordingly, they said, the site was not a strong contributor to the Green Belt urban sprawl restriction mission and thus was Grey Belt.
They had noted the benefits of the scheme – 45% affordable housing provided on site and more than 13 acres for green and blue infrastructure. Accordingly, they felt it constituted acceptable Grey Belt development.
City councillors clearly disagreed, rejecting the application.
The project team for the scheme included Lane Town Planning, Envirotech, Curtins, EPS, WSL, Redmore, UCM, and E3P. You can see the application by searching reference 25/00805/OUT on Lancaster City Council’s planning portal.
Laughable decision. The guidance is clear. Why do these charlatan politicians think they know better? They should be held personally accountable for the costs that the taxpayer will now have to cover to enable to the Council to attempt to defend the indefensible. I look forward to seeing Wrenman succeed at appeal.
By Anonymous
it would save a lot of time and expense if developers or local authorities could ask the Planning inspectorate to determine before an application if a site is grey belt or not.
Applicant could be charged the Planning inspectorate fee for the determination
By Anon
I think developers would find it easier if they go for smaller estates relitive to the area. developments should be relative to the area’s current size. More clarification on grey belt is needed as too many applications are claiming fields are Gey belt when they clearly are not
By Jon P
Jon P – The definition of Grey Belt is set out in the National Planning Policy Framework, with additional guidance and clarity set out within the associated Planning Practice Guidance. This site is clearly Grey Belt.
By Anonymous
45% affordabIe, 13 acres green/bIue infrastructure and Officer recommendation to approve – and yet the PoIiticians think they know better YET again. This utter nonsense needs to be outIawed if we are to buId the homes we desperateIy need.
By David SIeath
Local elections will be a distant memory by the time the appeal decision is made. I know the area quite well, my Mum lives about 20 yards off the above image. She won’t appreciate me saying this, Slyne, Hest Bank and Bolton-le-Sands are effectively a single developed area with significant areas of greenspace separating them from Lancaster, Morecambe and Carnforth. This site is a very obvious site within that developed area.
By Nick B
Always happens in an election year. Remember that the opponents to this are their voters. It’s completely disingenuous but when overturned they can wring hands and say they did what they could.
By Andrew
Nick B / Andrew – as far as i’m aware, there are no local elections scheduled in Lancaster this year.
By Anonymous
You are correct. Lancaster City Council does not have elections this May.
By Julia Hatmaker