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

Plans to build up to 200 homes in fields between Bolton-le-Sands and Slyne-with-Hest have been refused.

Lancaster City Council planning regulatory committee voted to refuse planning permission at a meeting on Monday.

Council officers had recommended that the controversial outline application for up to 200 homes on land west of the A6 Slyne Road, Bolton-le-Sands, be approved, saying it was no longer Green Belt but 'Grey Belt' land.

But a majority of the committee of councillors disagreed, voting 10 to three to refuse, with two abstaining.

Residents packed into Morecambe Town Hall to hear the decision, filling the public gallery, as well as an upstairs viewing room, with others waiting outside in the town hall foyer.

Councillor Keith Budden, a Conservative councillor for Bolton and Slyne, proposed that the application be refused.

"I think it's an important piece of land and that it should be spared the bulldozer," he said.

"There are just times in your life when you have to stand up for your roots."

Prior to the meeting, campaigners 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'.

The Green Belt Action Group (Slyne with Hest and Bolton le Sands) posted on social media saying "the fate of our area rests" on the decision and called for a "huge public presence" at the "decisive planning meeting" to "stop the sprawl" and "green belt (being) destroyed".

Following the decision, Beyond Radio spoke to resident Glenn Fothergill.

"I'm feeling elated," said Mr Fothergill.

"I think there was very good representation from the general public and how they brought a very good argument against this proposal.

"I grew up in Bolton-le-Sands and (the land) does designate the difference between Bolton-le-Sands and Slyne."

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

There had also been more than 670 objections received by the council.

The decision was made after almost two and a half hours of talks at the town hall.

Below, land near the A6 at Bolton-le-Sands

Earlier, residents speaking out against the new development included David Morris, former Conservative MP for Morecambe and Lunesdale, who called the plans "premature and procedurally unsound" and questioned the conclusion that the land was Grey Belt rather than Green Belt, which council officers said they'd made after testing it against national policy.

Peter Yates, a former Conservative councillor, said: "This is pristine Green Belt land. It should not be built on."

Barrie Wells, local entrepreneur and owner of Slyne Hall, said: "This plan totally destroys a beautiful open space for no public benefit whatsoever."

County Councillor Russell Walsh, Reform councillor for Morecambe North, said: "It's just not feasible. It just won't work. I don't trust the projections on traffic. The village identities are essential."

Lesley Bryan, a resident from the Friends of Lapwing Fields campaign group, said the development would cause "severe and permanent harm" and said the land "can't be labelled Grey Belt".

And Gill McKechnie, a resident of Bolton-le-Sands, said: "Local infrastructure including GP and dental services are already stretched.

"The benefits are weak, uncertain and largely aspirational."

Below, the packed public gallery at Morecambe Town Hall on Monday.

Laurie Lane, from Lane Town Planning speaking on behalf of the applicant Wrenman Strategic Land, said there would be a "huge public benefit" to the development and said "the number of birds using the site are not significant in conservation terms".

After the speeches, a presentation by council officers, and questions and debate from the committee, Councillor Budden proposed refusing the application. Councillor Martin Bottoms, a Morecambe Bay Independent, seconded this.

Councillor Louise Belcher, of Labour, agreed that the application 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". This was accepted by Councillor Budden as grounds for refusal.

Councillor Tom Fish, of the Greens, was also in favour of refusal, saying: "I think this is corporate use of our green space."

But Councillor Catherine Potter, of Labour, who voted against refusal, said: "We desperately need more houses. We need affordable houses. 

"I apologise for putting forward the alternative unpopular argument. But if not here, where else?

"Are we going to turn down every single planning application on a field that has neighbouring houses?"

The 11.31 hectare site is four fields on the southern edge of Bolton-le-Sands.

The southern boundary of the site is also close to the northern edge of Slyne, separated from the nearest residential development on Main Road/Slyne Road (A6) and Manor Lane by further fields.

The northern boundary is next to existing homes on Greenwood Drive, Greenwood Avenue, Pinewood Avenue and Ashworth Drive, and the eastern boundary of the site runs parallel with the A6 Slyne Road.

The outline application included affordable housing, public open space, landscaping, and sustainable urban drainage system and associated works.

A council report, published ahead of the meeting, explained why approval has been recommended.

It said the district's housing requirement is 10,440 new homes between 2011 and 2031, and that the council should be "facilitating the delivery of 685 dwellings per annum until 2028/2029".

However, there were only 196 new dwellings completed for the period 2024/2025, which includes 12 dwellings which were a result of new student housing, and followed a similarly low level of completions in 2023/24.

As of April 1 2025 the outstanding commitment for the district stood at 2,179 dwellings (including student accommodation and older persons accommodation).

The report said this "demonstrates a significant shortfall in housing delivery in the district" and that "the council cannot demonstrate a five-years supply of housing sites and in fact is only able to demonstrate a 2.8 years’ worth of supply of housing.

"Within recent appeal decisions relating to the delivery of housing, planning inspectors have described the council's poor housing land supply position as ‘acute’ and ‘woeful’.

"Whilst these statements were made in the context of a two year’s worth of supply of housing, the recent slight increase to 2.8 year’s worth of supply of housing is not a significant improvement."

The report also says: "The applicant has demonstrated a safe and suitable access can be provided and the impacts of development traffic would not lead to safety concerns or have residual cumulative impacts that would be severe on the network.

"Subject to pre-commencement conditions, it has been demonstrated that there are options available to ensure the development can be drained sustainability and without causing a flood risk elsewhere.

"With mitigation, the impacts of the development upon nearby designated ecological sites, upon the ecological value of the site itself and its immediate surroundings and upon most of the identified species, are acceptable.

"The application also demonstrates that there is sufficient scope to secure notable net gains in biodiversity at the reserved matters stage.

"It has also satisfactorily demonstrated that the development would secure acceptable standards of amenity for existing and future residents.

"The main issues weighing against the proposal relate to the localised landscape impacts, which would be most prevalent during the construction and initial operational phases and when in close proximity to the site itself.

"The loss of countryside and replacement with housing development cannot be mitigated."

But, the report said the applicant showed "a clear commitment to delivering a landscape-led development that appropriately balances the need to deliver housing alongside important environmental, social and landscape considerations".

It said the development was "an appropriately located and scaled proposal that would appear as a comfortable addition to the village peripheries".

"Furthermore, it is concluded that harm to the landscape, is capable of being minimised to an acceptable level through embedded design measures.

"As such, over time and once the development has become established, the proposal would result in a lessened impact to the character and appearance of the surrounding landscape.

"The proposal would also result in the loss of territory utilised by Lapwing, a bird species which is in decline and which features on the UK Red List for Birds of Conservation Concern.

"This loss cannot be mitigated, such as through replacement habitat within the development site.

"This is a harmful impact resulting from the development which weighs negatively against the proposal, even though this habitat may be inadvertently lost in any event through standard agricultural practices.

"However, the development also has the capability of providing significant enhancements for a variety of other bird species and biodiversity in general."

Letters received by the council object on varying grounds, including that "development such as this should be directed towards brownfield sites, rather than developing open countryside", "there is no need for additional housing in this area, and existing allocations have already been made for housing in other areas", "development of the site would result in the loss of openness and the loss of ‘Lapwing Fields’", "the development would harm the nature and character of the area", "there are already road safety issues, including danger along the A6 due to speeding", "the development will result in the loss of privacy and overlooking for neighbouring properties", "the development will result in the loss of mature trees and hedgerows", "the development will harm wildlife including protected species and red listed species including lapwings" and "the proposal will increase pressure on existing drainage infrastructure".

Read more: Rallying cry as crunch meeting looms on 'Bolton-le-Slyne' housing plans - Beyond Radio