Councillor reprimanded for breaking rules over controversial A6 housing plans

A councillor has been officially censured for breaching Lancaster City Council's Code of Conduct over plans to build houses near the A6 at Bolton-le-Sands.

Councillor Louise Belcher was brought before the council's standards committee after a complaint into her actions, following a planning application for up to 200 new homes on land west of Slyne Road.

The committee found that Councillor Belcher, who represents Carnforth and Millhead, failed to disclose a relevant link to a campaign group at a planning meeting, had given "materially inaccurate and misleading information" to the council's Monitoring Officer, and that emails forwarded by her to the council's Democratic Services department in response to a Freedom of Information request had been altered prior to being sent.

They said the breach "risked reducing public confidence in the impartiality of planning decisions, the accuracy of information provided to statutory officers, and the openness and honesty expected of elected members".

They also said that Councillor Belcher’s conduct "breached the provision of the Code of Conduct which prohibited a member from conducting themselves in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing the council or the office of councillor into disrepute".

The censure was said to be "a formal expression of the (council's) disapproval" of her conduct.

It was also recommended that she be removed from all council committees for the duration of this political term.

The standards committee is responsible for promoting and maintaining high standards of conduct and ethics among city and parish councillors across the Lancaster district.

Councillor Belcher told Beyond Radio she was "disappointed, but accepted" the decision.

The Labour councillor was a member of the council's planning regulatory committee who turned down the controversial Slyne Road planning application at a packed public meeting earlier this year.

But the standards committee said that she'd made no 'declaration of interest' at the meeting, which was held on February 16 at Morecambe Town Hall.

Morecambe Town Hall

The Lancaster City Council constitution has strict rules for planning committee members to ensure all applications are dealt with objectively.

They include that councillors are obliged to declare any relevant connections to matters being discussed, at the start of meetings.

"It was not disputed that Councillor Belcher made no declaration of interest at the planning regulatory committee meeting on 16 February 2026 when (the) planning application was considered," said the standards complaint report, published on the council website after a hearing was held on October 21.

"Before the meeting, Councillor Belcher was a member of the Green Belt Action Group (Slyne with Hest and Bolton-le-Sands) and had made comments which appeared supportive of the group’s opposition to the application.

"Although Councillor Belcher maintained that she had approached the application with an open mind, she accepted in interview that, had she remembered her membership of the (Facebook) group, she probably would have disclosed it.

"The committee found that, viewed objectively, these circumstances gave rise to an appearance of bias.

"A fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, could reasonably conclude that there was a real possibility of bias.

"The failure to disclose the connection was also inconsistent with the council’s planning protocol, which required members to avoid apparent bias and addresses relevant involvement with lobbying or campaign groups.

"This finding did not depend on proof that Councillor Belcher had in fact predetermined the application.

"The conduct was inconsistent with the principles of Objectivity, Integrity and Openness. In the circumstances, it could reasonably be regarded as reducing public confidence in the fairness and integrity of the planning process and therefore breached the code provision concerning conduct which brought the council or the office of councillor into disrepute."

On the issue of misleading the council's Monitoring Officer, whose role is to ensure the council, its officers and councillors act within the rules, the committee found:

"When first asked about her involvement with the Facebook group, Councillor Belcher stated that she was an observer, had not participated in posts or comments about the planning application and did not see or participate in the group. On that basis, the Monitoring Officer initially treated the matter as closed.

"Further evidence demonstrated that Councillor Belcher had made several entries in the group before the committee meeting. During interview she again indicated that she had not made comments about the planning application before the meeting, but this account was contradicted by the documentary evidence. Her explanation was that she had forgotten the posts.

"The committee found that Councillor Belcher’s statements were materially inaccurate and misleading and were inconsistent with the principle of honesty.

"Providing materially inaccurate and misleading information to the Monitoring Officer, a statutory officer carrying out the council’s standards functions, could reasonably be regarded as having adversely affected public confidence in elected members. It therefore breached the code provision concerning conduct which brought the council or the office of councillor into disrepute."

On the issue of alteration of information provided in response to a Freedom of Information request, the committee said:

"On March 20 2026, Councillor Belcher confirmed that she had forwarded relevant emails to (the council's) Democratic Services for the purpose of responding to a Freedom of Information request concerning (the) planning application. The evidence established that two of the emails had been altered before they were submitted.

"The committee found that altering relevant information before supplying it to Democratic Services was inconsistent with the principles of honesty and openness. The information had been requested to enable the council, as the public authority, to discharge its statutory duties under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

"The conduct could reasonably be regarded as having undermined public confidence that elected members would provide complete and accurate information to support the council in meeting those duties. It therefore breached the code provision concerning conduct which brought the council or the office of councillor into disrepute.

"Taken individually and cumulatively, the conduct was sufficiently serious to breach the code provision prohibiting conduct which could reasonably be regarded as bringing the council or the office of councillor into disrepute. It risked reducing public confidence in the impartiality of planning decisions, the accuracy of information provided to statutory officers, and the openness and honesty expected of elected members."

Beyond Radio contacted the Lancaster Labour group for comment.

"Councillor Belcher serves diligently in her role as a councillor, and on planning committee always represented the interests of the local community," said a spokesperson.

"Councillor Belcher voluntarily removed herself from serving on planning committee prior to the standards committee meeting.

"Developers often use their resources to aggressively pursue their own interests over those of local residents."

The planning committee meeting on February 16 was attended by a large number of residents, and Beyond Radio was also present.

Ahead of the meeting, council officers had recommended that the plans be approved, saying the land was no longer Green Belt but 'Grey Belt'.

Campaigners against the plans said said the development would result in urban sprawl within the Green Belt and the over population of the local area, and the merging of Bolton-le-Sands and Slyne to create a 'Bolton-le-Slyne'.

Twelve people gave speeches to councillors before the decision on the day, stating reasons why they believed the plans should be turned down.

There were also more than 670 objections received by the council.

But the cross-party group of councillors, who get the final say on whether to approve or decline applications, voted to refuse permission by 10 votes to three, with two abstaining.

During the meeting, Councillor Belcher was among the councillors who spoke about the application.

She said it should be refused and suggested this should be because it was "inappropriate development in the Green Belt" and would "prevent unrestricted sprawl" and "preserve the special character of historic towns".

The decision was made after almost two and a half hours of talks.

The developer launched an appeal earlier this year, and this will be decided by a government planning inspector in due course.

Read our full report on the February 16 planning meeting at the link below.

LISTEN: Up to 200 homes between Slyne and Bolton-le-Sands refused - Beyond Radio