Agenda item

The Council has received a petition with 5,270 signatories requesting that Spelthorne Borough Council does not release 19 Green Belt areas currently identified in the Local Plan for building or other commercial purposes and to protect the entire existing Green Belt in Spelthorne for generations to come.

The matter is referred to Council for consideration and a response.  In accordance with Standing Order 16.4 in the Constitution, the options available to Council are:

(a) to take the action the petition requests; or

(b) not to take the action requested for reasons put forward in the debate; or

(c) to note the petition and keep the matter under review.

The Council had received a petition with 5,270 signatories requesting that Spelthorne Borough Council did not release 19 Green Belt areas currently identified in the Local Plan for building or other commercial purposes and to protect the entire existing Green Belt in Spelthorne for generations to come.

The following statement accompanied the petition:

“Green Belt land fulfils important functions. Its fundamental aim is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open - and Spelthorne’s Green Belt boundaries have remained largely unchanged since WW2. Nonetheless, as part of its New Local Plan consultation, Spelthorne Borough Council is putting forward 19 Green Belt sites across the whole of Spelthorne for building/housing and commercial purposes. [1] This would mean a loss of 53ha of Green Belt with a risk of further erosion of our Green Belt in the future. It will result in smaller remaining Green Belt sites which will be weakened as a result and – in turn – become vulnerable to development.

Even though Green Belt boundaries should only be altered where “exceptional circumstances” are fully evidenced and justified and where strictly necessary, the Council has decided to reject 29 urban (brownfield) sites for development opting for Green Belt sites instead which are strongly preferred by developers and Green Belt owners as these greatly maximise profit margins. Once stripped of Green Belt status, the value of land can raise 2500 fold (250,000%) and more. The release of the Green Belt will lead to significant changes to the character of the areas where they are located and will have a significant impact on local residents as these plots of land have an amenity, biodiversity value, a visual benefit and/or carbon capture value – which is now more important than ever during a time of Climate Emergency when more (not fewer) green spaces and re-wooded areas are required to counteract carbon emissions.”

In accordance with the Council’s Petition Scheme, the matter was referred to Council for consideration and a response.

Malcolm Beecher presented the petition to the Council referring to the effects of destroying forest and woodland on climate change and the part the Green Belt plays not only in preventing urban sprawl but as a vital carbon sink. He stated that the health of the Borough’s residents was as important as their need for housing and claimed that with the use of innovative design the Council could deliver the homes it needed by developing the brownfield sites in the Borough. He also stated that Local Authorities had responsibility for assessing the number of homes they needed, not the government, whose targets were not mandatory.

Councillor I.J. Beardsmore responded to the petition as follows:

“Firstly I believe residents deserve more than a series of facts when it comes to answers, so with this in mind I will split my response in two - the answer itself which I shall provide now and an evidence base to sustain that answer which will be provided following the meeting. Otherwise we are going to be here an awfully long time.

With this petition and with other responses tonight I need to clear up some misconceptions from the start.

1) Apart from two small sites, Spelthorne do not own any of these sites

2) Spelthorne will not be building on any of those other sites

3) Spelthorne will not be making any sort of profit from those sites

Spelthorne is required to do a call for sites.  We are required to seriously consider every site submitted. Whether we like it or not.

What about the two small sites Spelthorne own?

Firstly if we hadn’t considered them, it would simply leave a gap that needs to be filled by other site/s.

Secondly it would leave us open to a charge of bias if we did not include our own sites that also did less well under the review.

Difficult where to start with this petition. Given so much of it, and the so called information around it, is misleading, wrong or down right false.

It is implied that there is no proper evidence base. False. Firstly all the Green Belt sites submitted for possible re-zoning as housing were strongly evidenced. For the overwhelming number of the sites the evidence was that they should remain Green Belt. The sites which might be removed from Green Belt were the handful that did not do so well. That is what the evidence revealed. For the record 92% of the Green Belt area submitted - was rejected

The selection and assessment methodology is available on line and noted in the evidence base attached to these minutes.

It is claimed that we did not consider such things as biodiversity in the analysis. False.  Whilst this is not a function of the Green Belt, we considered this and other non-Green Belt functions as far as possible through the sustainability appraisal.All of which is in the sustainability appraisal included in the evidence base attached to these minutes.

It is claimed that 29 Brownfield sites were rejected.    Despite being repeatedly told this was wrong the proponents of this petition refused to change this. It is False.  All the 29 sites are included in the Strategic Land Availability Assessment. (SLAA) and are included within our supply. This consultation was about moving them from that ‘pot’ of sites to the allocations pot. We have not suggested this as there is less certainty about when they will become available.

It is claimed that only 2947 homes were allocated on brownfield sites.  False  The number is 7103 made up of the 2671 Urban sites + 1997 SLAA  sites +1600 Staines sites + 835 windfall.

This also shows that  the claim, ‘plus other sites that might arise’ is False. We have already included 835 windfall dwellings.

In Sum up the claims of:

No evidence base                                                    - False

Not considered other sustainability issues               - False

Did not include 29 brownfield sites                           - False

Did not include many brownfield sites                      - False

Did not include windfall provision                             - False

Given the dishonesty with which this petition was presented, it would be all too easy - and in many ways justified, to dismiss it entirely.  But actually I think that would be missing the point. I am sure many of the signatures of the petition represent people who are as genuinely concerned about Green belt as I am. Simply dismissing them because of the actions of a few is I think wrong. We are very aware of how strongly people feel on this matter and this is part of that, so when considering what to do with this petition I would ask members to keep in mind the fears and concerns it actually represents.”

Councillor Smith-Ainsley moved that the Council notes the petition and keeps the matter under review. The proposal was seconded by Councillor V.J. Leighton.

Councillor L.E. Nichols called for a recorded vote.

Councillor D. Saliagopoulos was not present in the Chamber at the time the vote was called.

The vote was as follows:

The Deputy Mayor, Councillor C. Barnard exercised his casting vote and voted for the motion. The motion was therefore carried.

The Deputy Mayor adjourned the meeting for 5 minutes to allow the public to leave.