| Home | Bookmark | Tell | Active petitions in over 75 countries | Follow GoPetition |
Petition Tag - green belt
West Lancs Borough Council's Local Plan proposes to develop a 74 hectare site with houses and industrial units on Green Belt at Yew Tree Farm on Higgins Lane, joining Burscough village to the nearby industrial estate and merging it with the hamlet of New Lane. The site will initially have 1000 houses, developed in two phases, but could potentially deliver a further 2000 in the future.
In addition to the initial 1000 houses, a further 350 will be built around Burscough and 250 South of Burscough on Green Belt at Grove Farm, closing the gap between the village and the town of Ormskirk. There is also provision to build a further 60 houses on Green Belt off Red Cat Lane. All in addition to approved ongoing developments.
The developments avoids putting affordable housing where it is needed. The need for affordable housing is four times as great in Ormskirk and Aughton as it is in Burscough. Yet the plan proposes to build considerably more houses in Burscough than in Ormskirk.
Apart from all the valid reasons that locals have for objecting to these developments listed in the petition, looking at the evidence WLBC has produced the sites have not been identified by a fair process, the process is inconsistent in its methodology, ignores major constraints, removes more suitable sites without evidence and prioritises Green Belt over Brown Field sites.
2. Stop New Housing on Drum Estate 
The proposed development of affordable housing on the land at the north side of Drum Estate will impinge on the green belt and have a massive impact on the environment of the Candlemakers Estate.
As well as the loss of amenity of the woodland and open space and the loss of wildlife habitat, this proposed development will double the traffic volumes at the entrance to the estate with the resultant increase in noise and pollution.
It will directly impact on property values and insurance costs and change the entire nature of the estate. If the development goes ahead, there will be an extended period of disruption and disturbance which will end in the area being forever changed.
3. Protect the health of our children and residents by saving the Norton Green Belt
The Sheffield Green Belt between Norton, Gleedless Valley and the Moss Valley has a planning proposal to build a Biomass waste recycling plant.
This process has 'known' health risks to the young and old. Anyone with breathing issues or reduced immune system could see increased breating/lung infections. Widlife & animals will also be affected.
For the health welfare of these residents and protection of Sheffields 'green' status we must reject this planning request.
*This is an online version of a petition launched on 5th October 2011, by Hangleton & Knoll Councillor, Brian Fitch.*
Did you know that Brighton & Hove’s Green Council plans to allow a local green open space, Toads Hole Valley, to be concreted over and developed into Housing?
Due to changes to the planning law by the Coalition Government, a host of safeguards have been removed & replaced with a ‘presumption to build’. Gone, for example, are rules which prioritised brown-field sites first for development.
In light of these changes, the Green Council have perversely decided to give developers the green light to concrete over green space & build housing on Toads Hole Valley.
We are deeply opposed to these planning changes, as well as the Green Council’s plans to give the go-ahead for Toads Hole Valley to be concreted & built on.
That is why we are campaigning for Brighton & Hove’s Green Council to reverse their decision.
5. Don't Over Develop Durrington
In March 2010 Worthing borough council dismissed an application to develop 125 acres of greenbelt farmland and ancient woodland west of Durrington near Worthing. However the same developers have returned with a modified scheme excluding the woods and lane but still building on the farmland.
Although this revised scheme has reduced the land take to 80 acres and the woodland is spared we are still objecting as this land boarders the South Downs National Park and ancient Titnore woods. Not only are the fields important for food production, they act as a buffer between the urban sprawl and the open landscape of the English countryside.
This petition forms part of a campaign aimed at changing the law so that elected local representatives, at Parish, Borough or County level, and local residents are properly empowered to control development in their area, and for all applicants to be treated equally under planning rules.
We want to put fairness at the heart of the planning system where at present it does not exist. All over the country the views of local people are being overruled by the Planning Inspectorate. We believe this to be unfair. Why should some people be given permission to build in the Green Belt when others are not, for example?
Locally, we have seen the recent planning application for the proposed change of use of land adjacent to Newtonside Orchard mobile home park, off Burfield Road, Old Windsor, from an outdoor recreation and leisure site, to a gypsy and traveller caravan site for up to five pitches. Even though local residents are opposed to this application, and even if the Borough Councillors vote against this application, our research shows that if the applicant appeals, it is likely that the Planning Inspectorate will overturn any decision made locally.
We feel, strongly, that it should be up to local people and their elected representatives to decide on what development does or not does not take place in their communities, particularly when this concerns the preservation of the Green Belt.
Please support our campaign, by signing this petition, to put fairness back into the planning system.
7. Re-designate land at Springfield Meadow from a reserve housing site to green belt
The land at Springfield Meadow in the village of Westcott, Surrey was originally designated as a reserve housing site in the early 1980's as part of the Dorking Area Local Plan.
A map of the area in question can be viewed here (http://westcottmeadow.ning.com/page/greenbelt-petition) highlighted in blue.
We are opposing attempts to build housing estates on Green Belt land within our village. The plans are neither in keeping with the community or required by the community and are viewed as a profit making scheme and nothing else.
There are enough Brown Field sites in the UK to support our housing needs for the forseeable future so any attempts to build on Green Belt should be strongly opposed. Save our Green Belt!
9. Say no to the Travellers and Gypsy Site off Hall Lane Little Lever
Landowners who own a section of green belt land located off Hall Lane, Little Lever are in pre-application talks with Bolton Council’s planning department and have put forward proposals to build affordable houses on the site.
However with the plans unlikely to be accepted, due to building on green belt land, they have also put forward a scheme to establish pitches for gypsy and travellers site.
If you have any objections to the proposed gypsy and travellers site then you need to add your name to this petition.
You can’t afford to sit back and think that someone else will do it - This is your community; make sure you have your say!
Dollar has inadequate Green Belt provision in comparison to the other hillfoots towns. Menstrie, Alva and Tillicoultry all have encircling protection. Dollar and Muckhart do not.
Dollar Civic Trust believes that this places the town of Dollar at risk from speculative development. Developers have expressed an interest in more development sites South and East of Dollar (in comments on the Local Plan in 2009). This is where the Green Belt is needed.
Go to www.dollarcivictrust.org for more information.
UPDATE 08 September, 2010
STOP PRESS! Now there now over 450 names and the petition will close in two weeks time. We hope to get up to 500 and take it to Clackmannanshire Council and the Press. Thanks to all and keep those signatures coming!
MAKE SURE EVERYONE KNOWS ABOUT IT. PAPER PETITIONS ARE AT 26 BRIDGE STREET.
Nottingham City Council plan to develop housing and a Stadium on Rushcliffe green belt land. Media releases suggest plans for 3500 - 4500 houses and a Stadium. These plans were released to local media on 07/09/09 without any prior consultation with local residents.
An independent survey of the area by Tribal Solutions (partly funded by Nottingham City Council) had already identified the area as unsuitable for development. The proposed location is designated green belt and contravenes current planning guidelines (Planning Policy Guidance 2 Green Belt). It is also on a River Trent floodplain so contravenes Flood Planning Policy Statement 25 Development & Flood Risk.
Furthermore the scale of the development cannot be supported by the local infrastructure.
12. Save Tilbury Marshes; defend Tilbury's Green-Belt
A huge chunk of land known as Tilbury Marshes green belt land is wanted for development as port related purposes. Tilbury says it's time for people to take a stand and say no to concrete over green-belt land.
This proposal is a major attack on precious green-belt land and a real threat to an important part of the flood plain.
Any development here would be wrong and represents the loss of visual and aural amenity for residents of Tilbury and Chadwell and Little Thurrock.
13. No Quarrying In Charnwood Forest
Leicestershire County Council have introduced a new Minerals Framework, that for the first time provides a Quarrying Policy for Charnwood Forest. The previous policy (1991 - 2006) did not allow quarrying in Charnwood Forest.
The new Minerals Framework also allows Mineral Extraction to take place on Green Wedge land, which could devastate the Soar River Valley.
We are calling on Leicestershire County Council to abandon the new Minerals Policy, and replace it with a total ban on quarrying in Charnwood Forest and Green Wedge Land.
14. "No" to loss of Green Belt in Chigwell
Essex County Council and a private developer have submitted plans to finance the rebuilding of Chigwell Primary School by building 66 (mainly) luxury homes on adjacent Green Belt land.
WHEREAS Burgess Park is an un-developed, provincially owned area of natural forest and meadows, adjacent to the Thames River in Woodstock which is managed by the City of Woodstock through an agreement with the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority.
WHEREAS Burgess Park is the one of the last remaining significant natural areas within the historical City boundaries, within walking distance of downtown and most residents, and with a connection to other green and open spaces in the City.
WHEREAS This land is now threatened by the City’s decision to allow a land lease for a golf course expansion on the property.
WHEREAS Since 1946, the mandate of Conservation Authorities in Ontario has been defined in Section 20 of the Provincial Conservation Authorities Act as: "to establish and undertake, in the area in which it has jurisdiction, a program designed to further the conservation, restoration, development and management of natural resources..."
16. Residents against GreenBelt Erosion
We object to the proposed development (P/2007/102/PA/900) at the bottom of Moorside Lane as it would lead to loss of Green Belt land.
Neither is it in accordance with the Ellesmere Port and Neston Local Plan supported by the Council’s Position Statement in December 2007 on managing supply of housing land which restricted development to Brownfield sites and only then if it meets strict conditions.
The Green Belt is an integral part of the locality and is a facility enjoyed by all residents and many people from outside the immediate area.
In particular the development is against policies GB2, GB4, ENV6, ENV12 and REC7 of the Local Plan covering the Green Belt, the Area of Special County Value for Landscape, the Dee Coastal Zone and the Dee Coastal Path.
We urge the Local Planning Authority to reject the application and confirm its commitment to the Local Plan.