Agenda item

To deal with matters raised by members of the public, of which notice has been given in accordance with the procedures relating to public questions, motions or petitions set out in Paragraph 36 to 46 of the Council and Committee Procedure Rules in Chapter 4 of the Council Constitution.

(The details of any petitions submitted by members of the public will be circulated prior to the meeting).

The Mayor reported that in accordance with the Council’s Petition Scheme set out in Chapter 12 of the Council Constitution, 4 public petitions had been submitted for consideration at the Council meeting.

(1)       The Council heard representations from Mrs Nuala Kranas of the Aintree Village Residents Group on behalf of a deputation who had submitted a petition containing 2,850 signatures which stated:

“We the undersigned urge the Council to amend the 'Preferred Option' to Option 1, address the issues surrounding our lack of amenities and infrastructure and work with the community to reflect what they want and not what the developers want, whose only aim is to make big profits from local communities.”

Justification:

“Sefton MBC’s Local Plan has proposals which will damage the green belt and make Aintree a worse place to live. In the coming months, the Council will undertake a Public Consultation Process. They currently have used inaccurate household population growth information which is 10 years out of date. They do not address the real need for affordable/type of housing but allow developers to build 3/4/5 bedroom executive homes on greenbelt, which none of us would be able to afford. Our amenities are non-existent and they severely underestimate the effect any further development will have on our schools, roads, dentists and GP service. We don’t even have a library and the current plan would lead to a decline in the local quality of life.”

The following issues were raised by Members of the Council during the debate on the content of the petition:

·         the impact of increased traffic in Aintree and Melling and the need for adequate infrastructure to be provided;

·         that a traffic survey had been undertaken during a school holiday period;

·         that the Peel Holdings development would have a significant impact on the local environment; and

·         that the views of all the people who had signed the three Local Plan petitions should not be ignored.

Members of the Council thanked Mrs Kranas for making her representations.

Following debate, It was moved by Councillor P. Dowd, seconded by Councillor Maher and

RESOLVED:

That the petition be noted and taken into account during the consideration of the report under Minute No. 68 below.

(2)       The Council then heard representations from Mr Colin Reader of the Maghull and Lydiate Action Group on behalf of a deputation who had submitted a petition containing 3,060 signatures which stated:

 “We ask the Council to listen to the community, to re-examine and vote for option 1, which is building on brownfield sites only and not on green belt and high grade agricultural land, this is now possible due to a sharp fall in housing need.”

Justification:

“Sefton's Local Plan continues to encroach on our beautiful high grade agricultural/green belt land. More accurate up-to-date figures show a significant reduction in housing need. Maghull and Lydiate does not have the infrastructure in place to cater for any additional capacity, roads are already badly congested, schools are oversubscribed, traffic and parking is a major problem and we are already experiencing significant flooding problems.”

The following issues were raised by Members of the Council during the debate on the content of the petition:

·         that the proposed scale of the developments in Maghull and Lydiate was not acceptable; would have a significant impact on the population levels in those areas and would raise questions about the ability of partner agencies to provide adequate infrastructure;

·         that high quality agricultural land would be used for the proposed developments; and

·         that the 30% affordable housing target in the Local Plan would not be met.

Members of the Council thanked Mr Reader for making his representations.

Following debate, It was moved by Councillor P. Dowd, seconded by Councillor Maher and

RESOLVED:

That the petition be noted and taken into account during the consideration of the report under Minute No. 68 below.

(3)       The Council then heard representations from Mr Bob McCann of the Formby Residents Action Group – Opposition From Formby (FRAGOFF) on behalf of a deputation who had submitted a petition containing 3,330 signatures which stated:

“We the undersigned urge the Council to amend the 'Preferred Option', reconsider Option 1, rectify current failings in the Local Plan and fully address infrastructural matters, furthermore work with the community to better reflect their needs and place their concerns above those of the developers, as they are the major stakeholders in Sefton.”

Justification:

“The latest Government figures for Sefton show that population increase in the Borough has been over estimated by more than 50%. Central Government estimate we only need to build about 420 houses per year. Despite this the Council are now proposing to build over 700 homes every year in their Draft Local Plan. As it stands Sefton’s Draft Local Plan does not meet the needs for Formby’s Roads and infrastructure, schools and health services and fails to address flooding and drainage concerns.”

The following issues were raised by Members of the Council during the debate on the content of the petition:

·         that the provision of affordable housing and social housing would not be met in accordance with the targets set in the Local Plan;

·         that the proposed new developments in Formby would create flooding problems;

·         that the Council should follow the example of Liverpool City Council and establish a Greenfield Task Force comprising community and Council representatives;

·         that there was a need for the provision of new affordable housing for young people in Formby; and

·         that Councillors should recognise the needs of the local community and not the views of their political group or Council officers.

Members of the Council thanked Mr McCann for making his representations.

Following debate, It was moved by Councillor P. Dowd, seconded by Councillor Maher and

RESOLVED:

That the petition be noted and taken into account during the consideration of the report under Minute No. 68 below.

(4)       The Council heard representations from Olivia Blyth and Alex Bond - Townsend of the ‘Save the Botanic’ Campaign on behalf of a deputation who had submitted a petition containing 4,886 signatures which stated:

 “It is understood that Sefton Council may be planning to make staff at Botanic Gardens redundant. Such plans could see the outsourcing of the aviary and the fernery as well as causing significant detriment to the planting within the park. The latest plans throw into real doubt whether Sefton Council know what Southport residents value and hold dear. We the undersigned oppose Labour-run Sefton Councils plans to cut staff and services in the Botanic Gardens.”

The following issues were raised by Members of the Council during the debate on the content of the petition:

·         Reference has been made to the need for community resilience to enable volunteers and local communities to assist the Council in the delivery of services but the loss of Council staff under this budget saving proposal could result in no support for the Friends of the Botanic Gardens who undertake voluntary work in the park;

·         The Botanic Gardens is the ‘jewel in the crown’ and the ’flagship’ for Southport and the lack of flower beds in the park would diminish the number of tourist visitors to the park and Southport; and

·         Request made for the Council to meet with the Friends of the Botanic Gardens to discuss the options for the future maintenance of the flower beds in the park.

Members of the Council thanked Olivia Blyth and Alex Bond - Townsend for making their representations.

Following debate, It was moved by Councillor P. Dowd, seconded by Councillor Maher and

RESOLVED:

That the petition be noted and taken into account during the consideration of the report under Minute No. 69 below.