Agenda item

Public Participation

Any member of the public who wishes to ask a question, make representations or present a deputation or petition at this meeting should apply to do so by no later than 0:01am (one minute past midnight) two working days before the meeting.  Information on how to make the application can be obtained by viewing the Council’s Website or by contacting the Committee Services Team on 01539 733333.


(1)        Questions and Representations


            To receive any questions or representations which have been received from members of the public.


(2)        Deputations and Petitions


            To receive any deputations or petitions which have been received from members of the public.


Gillian Kelly, who had been researching and giving talks about global warming for over two years, addressed Council with regard to the second motion at Agenda Item No.16, Climate Emergency 2019.  M/s Kelly, due to the fast acceleration of climate change, rather than referring to climate change or global warming, referred instead to climate breakdown, climate chaos and, soon to be, climate catastrophe.  She pointed out that the statistics shown within the motion were already out of date.  Scientists had agreed that around 355ppm of CO² in the atmosphere was acceptable to support life and, as stated in the motion, in 2017 it had been 405.5ppm, but in 2018, it had topped 411ppm, and the meteorological office had said that that this year was on course to be the hottest yet.  Emissions of CO² were also forecast to be the highest on record.  M/s Kelly said that, beyond a rise of 2?C, any chance of controlling the heating up of the planet and natural systems would break down.  The IPCC report of October 2018 had been unequivocal about the peril faced by the world and, although the report allowed 11 to 12 years to turn things around, experts were saying that that there was not that much time.  M/s Kelly pointed out that it was not possible to overstate the danger the world was in and drew attention to the potential for future generations to face extinction if action was not taken.  M/s Kelly stressed the need to be deeply alarmed and perturbed and asked Members to pass the motion.  She pointed out that to take action on the motion would take courage of the highest order.  Truly radical changes were required, led by Central Government.  Some of the measures needed would prove unpopular and M/s Kelly felt that Members should be prepared to work together, across party lines, giving up on what she might call “political tribalism.”  For the sake of the population being governed by South Lakeland District Council, she again urged Members to pass the motion.


On behalf of Alan Brenton, Councillor Shirley-Anne Wilson addressed Members.  Mr Brenton had been contacted by residents from Monument Way in Ulverston who had been dismayed that a planning condition had been breached by developers at a site at Sir John Barrow Way.  The developers had claimed that they were opening access for another group of residents at Lund Farm whose statutory right of access had been blocked by the same developer.  Mr Brenton felt that this access should have been subject to an additional planning application.  Residents had challenged a large convoy of fleet vehicles which had stopped next to a lamp post displaying the condition that banned the vehicles from entering that part of the estate.  Residents and local councillors had pointed out the obvious breach of condition and the mistrust caused by this action.  A response to the question as to why this had happened had appeared in the local press from the developer’s operations officer stating that the condition was currently correct.  In summary, residents were puzzled that the developer had sent in a road team without permission from the Planning Authority, breaching the planning consent.  The scheme had been refused permission, however, the decision had subsequently been overturned on appeal to the Planning Inspectorate and residents were concerned at the manner in which the developer was managing the scheme, to their own convenience, reducing the effect that resident influence had in terms of affecting their own close environment.  The arrangement of the developer deciding when and now to breach planning conditions was alarming and it was pointed out that residents had few rights to appeal or protest.  They sought a means of proper dialogue to end the disputes.  If no agreement could be reached then residents questioned the future of the estate and also what residents in South Lakeland could expect from future planning applications when changes to conditions designed to protect the interests of residents could be changed or removed with such casual ease.