Skip to Content

Petitions received

For a full list of refuse and recycling collection dates and Council opening times over the Christmas period, head to this webpage.

Below are details relating to recent and current petitions received by us, during the 2018/19 council year.

Petition regarding consultation on expansion of cemetery provision in Loughborough and inclusion of Shelthorpe Golf Course as an option

Lead Petitioner:  Local Resident

Number of Signatures:  538

Date Submitted:  21.09.2018


The Council have investigated a number of possibilities and identified three viable options within its ownership which could provide burial space for many years to come. Local residents were consulted over the selection of a potential new cemeterysite from the list of viable options. These options were:

  • Shelthorpe Golf Course
  • Land at Nanpantan
  • Recreation land at Allendale Road

The results of the consultation formed part of the final recommendations to Cabinet on 18th October, 2018 to assist them with the selection of a preferred site. The petition involving 538 signatories relating to Shelthorpe Golf Course was also  highlighted in the report to Cabinet.

 At the meeting Cabinet approved the selection of land at Nanpantan as the preferred option to be taken forwards as a new cemetery site. Further investigations will now take place at Nanpantan to secure the site as a future cemetery.

Petitions received in 2017/18

Petition for a Secure Dog Park

Lead Petitioner:  Cllr. J. Bradshaw

Number of Signatures:  94

Date Submitted:  30.04.2018


There are currently no plans to develop any dog parks as part of the Council’s capital programme which runs to 2020/21. Research by officers has uncovered mixed views around  the development of dog parks with the Kennel Club making the following comments on their website. 

“Dog parks are usually found in countries such as America, where 'dogs on lead' is the default position and so dogs are only allowed off the lead in designated areas. The opposite is the case in the UK and the Kennel Club opposes the general concept of dog parks as they are usually very small areas and a symptom of very extensive restrictions on dogs. 

Dog parks concentrate urine and barking in a small area so they are hard and costly to manage and often unpopular with those nearby. Furthermore, whilst an extensive number of parks would have to be developed if they were to be accessible to all, without the need to drive to them, they could still never be an adequate substitute for the countryside and urban green space, as dogs accompany people on around half of all visits to such areas. 

Enclosing all dog owners in a small area is not beneficial and the Kennel Club would prefer to see dog owners and non-dog owners sharing public spaces responsibly, whilst ensuring that any restrictions being introduced are done on a proportionate and fair basis. 

The Kennel Club believes that developing dogs parks will not benefit dogs, dog owners nor the general public because:

•People walk less in dog parks, reducing the human health benefits from dog walking. They tend to stand around and chat instead, rather than go for a walk.

•With fewer people in wider green space, antisocial behaviour is more likely to occur due to the lack of routine informal surveillance by dog walkers at all times of day and year.

•Concentrating lots of dogs in one small area can increase the frequency of dog attacks as there is no space to get away and diffuse the situation.

•Just one poorly trained dog can render a whole dog park unusable to everyone else.” 


Petition against Excessive Mountsorrel Parish Precept 2018-19

Lead Petitioner:   Mrs Susan Holyoake 

Number of Signatures:    664

Date Submitted:    19.04.2018


The Borough Council has received a number of representations regarding the increase in the precept levied by Mountsorrel Parish Council for 2018/19.  However, it is a fundamental principle of the organisation of local government that while there are different tiers (county, district or borough, and parish) one tier is not accountable for or responsible to another.  As a result the Borough Council has no power to intervene in the budget or precept of another local authority in the Borough.

The Localism Act 2011 to which you refer does include provisions for local referendums to be held if proposed increases in Council Tax by principal authorities (the Borough, the County, the Police or Fire Authority but not parish councils) are above certain thresholds deemed to be excessive.  The Government did make some proposals to extend those referendum requirements to larger parish councils but these have not been implemented.  There are, therefore, at present no limits on the ability of parish councils to increase their parish precept.

The Local Government Act 2003 gives the Borough Council the ability to hold an advisory referendum on matters of local importance.  As the term implies these referendums are only consultative.  Were the Borough Council to incur the time and expense costs of a referendum all that it could do in this case would be to forward the results to Mountsorrel Parish Council for information.  On that basis it is not appropriate for the Borough Council to hold an advisory referendum.  This conclusion has been reached in part because there is a local alternative which residents of Mountsorrel could adopt if they wished to do so.  This is to hold a parish meeting and parish poll and brief details of the process for doing so are advised. 

Petition to Oppose LCC's proposal to close the Cobden Street Sure Statrt Centre, hastings Ward, Loughborough

Lead Petitioner:   Cllr. M. Draycott



The petition will be presented to the meeting of the Children and Families Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 5 March 2018.  The meeting starts at 1.30pm.  

Meetings of the Children and Families Overview and Scrutiny Committee are open to the public, and you are very welcome to attend to present the petition.  The petition will be considered as part of the agenda item on the Early Help Review as this will allow members to discuss it in the context of the review.

Petition to object to proposed change of boundary of the Rothley Primrose Hill Estate

Lead Petitioner:    Jayesh Keshav

Number of Signatures:   121

Date Submitted:  22.01.2018


The above petition was submitted by Councillor Page at the Charnwood Borough Council meeting held on Monday 22nd January 2018, and he also read out the petition and explained how many of the Primrose Hill residents had signed it.

At that meeting, Councillors also considered a final report on the proposals arising from the community governance review, which included a recommendation to amend the relevant parish boundaries to move the Primrose Hill development from Rothley into Mountsorrel.

During the debate on that proposal, Councillor Page made further reference to the petition, so Councillors were aware of it in reaching their decision.

The final decision made at the meeting was that the parish boundary should be amended as was recommended. The reason for that decision is to correct an anomalous parish boundary issue which has been created by the new Primrose Hill development, which appears to be a natural extension to the settlement of Mountsorrel, by creating a strong boundary reflecting the area of separation between the settlements

of Mountsorrel and Rothley, and to facilitate effective and convenient local government.

Petition to Stop CBC building a Cemetery on recreation field at Allendale Road

Lead Petitioner:   Cllr. David Hayes

Number of signatures: 342

Date Submitted: 06.11.2017


An additional meeting of the Scrutiny Management Board will be held on Tuesday, 14th November 2017 at 6.00pm at Woodgate Chambers.  The meeting is for the purpose of considering the call-in of the Cabinet decision set out in Cabinet Minute 41 (19th October 2017), Future Cemetery Provision for Loughborough.  The Scrutiny Management Board can decide to:

•        support the decision, which can then be implemented immediately or

•        send the decision back with its comments to the decision taker (i.e. Cabinet) who    

          will then take a final decision

At that meeting reference will be made to submission of the petition to Council on 6 November. 

Petition to Apply protection to the status of Loughborough Market Place by enforcing the law that prohibits things such as public entertainment etc. that have not been authorized by the Council from taking place within 6 and 2 third miles of Loughborough Market Place and apply the conditions for authorizing these events that are defined in the petition

Lead Petitioner:  Mr Jonathan Hayes

Number of signatures: 255

Date Submitted: 17.10.2017


Whilst Charnwood Borough Council is responsible for delivery of the Loughborough Market, your Petition lacks particularity with regard to which festival(s) have impacted in the way described.  All requests to host an event within the area of Loughborough Market will be considered on an application by application basis by the relevant Council department.  Please note in the event that disorder is occasioned by a festival, the police do have powers should they be satisfied that an offence has been committed. 

 I am satisfied having considered your Petition that the 6 and ⅔rd mile prohibition, as contained within the Markets Charter, does not apply based on the information as contained within the Petition.

Petition against the service charge on freehold properties in Cedar Walk, Birstall

Lead Petitioner:  Ms Sadna Dan / Cllr Renata Jones

Number of signatures: 69

Date Submitted: 04.09.2017

Developers of new estates are required to provide elements of critical infrastructure that are needed to support the communities that are going to live in the houses provided.

This is covered in an agreement between the Council and the developers called a section 106 agreement. Section 106 is the relevant section of the Town and Country

Planning Act that refers to the provision of facilities for residents. Developers can either provide the necessary facilities within the development, at their own cost, or provide funding to public bodies to deliver facilities “off-site”.

Where open spaces/sports pitches are provided within the development, the developer can choose to transfer the ownership and/or maintenance of the open spaces/pitches to a management trust/company. Where this happens, residents are usually charged a management/service charge to cover the costs associated with maintaining the area.  Developers are under no legal obligation to transfer the land to the Council or other public body. The requirement for residents to pay a management/service charge should be flagged to the new owners by their solicitor as part of the conveyancing process.

Petition regarding ASB Long Meadow Way, Birstall

Lead petitioner: Councillor Iain Bentley

Number of sugnatures: 15

Date submitted: 26.06.2017

I have this morning liaised with my Head of Service Julie Robinson with a view to progressing this matter. Our initial assessment is that this case fits the criteria for a Community Trigger and I am proposing that it is this course of action that we will follow. A Community Trigger forms a part of the legal powers implemented by the ASB, Crime & Policing Act 2014. Once a trigger is activated, it places a statutory duty upon the Council to undertake a review of the service a complainant has received in respect of their case.

From the papers I have started to review, I believe that the case has reached the threshold for the activation of a Community Trigger. This would result in myself conducting a full review of the case and ultimately chairing a meeting with key stakeholders involved in the case. This course of action, under the banner of a Community Trigger, will provide a professional and accountable process for the complainant.

I have appointed my colleague Sarah Fisher as a point of contact for the Community Trigger and she is undertaking the process of pulling together all the necessary papers for my assessment. I have also attached a brief summary of the process which hopefully will assist yourself and the complainant.

Tim MCCabe

Petition regarding school/student parking on Gracedieu Road, Loughborough, Leics

Lead petitioner: Councillor Ted Parton/ Councillor Julie Bradshaw MBE

Number of signatures: 73

Date submitted: 24.04.2017

Gracedieu Road is a residential road; it is a fairly wide road with wide graced verges and space is available for on street parking. There are currently no parking restrictions on Gracedieu Road 

The County Council receives many requests for a wide variety of road safety measures; therefore, all requests that are received have to be considered against set criteria based on an evidence led appraisal. This is to ensure that resources are employed in the most cost efficient and robust manner as possible. At present the County Council’s resources around road safety are being directed at remedial works at high risk locations, which have evidence of a poor accident history, with the worst recorded personal injury accident records which are reported to us by the Police. 

The data available to Leicestershire County Council shows that there has only been one recorded accident in the last five years. This was not classified as a fatal or serious accident.

Current parking levels show that for the majority of parking on Gracedieu Road is by residents and not by non-residents. Kerb space is restricted as many residents have dropped kerb frontages to allow for off-street parking. 

The close proximity of several schools exacerbate any parking concerns during the morning and afternoon, however this problem is only for short periods of the day and is experienced throughout the county. 

In 2011 Leicestershire shire County Council proposed measures to restrict parking of non-residents as part of the West Loughborough Parking Strategy which included Gracedieu Road. It was overwhelmingly rejected by residents. This included 83 objections from residents of Gracedieu Road (approximately 70 percent) stating that their concerns were that this would negatively affect them personally, the cost of the scheme and that the proposals were excessive. The current petition includes 17 signatures that previously objected. 

The implementation of a prohibition of waiting restriction can be a complete prohibition (double yellow line) or a prohibition at certain times (single yellow line). Double yellow lines assist with preventing vehicles from parking on-street, these are generally implemented where safety to all road users are compromised and to aid with the flow of traffic to prevent congestion (particularly in areas where traffic volumes are high). Single yellow lines are introduced to remove vehicles at certain times and days of the week. Such a restriction could remove on street parking during the day time. Evidence shows that this restriction is likely to cause a displacement of parked vehicles to areas where there are no restrictions. 

It should be noted that many residents find the introduction of yellow lines outside their property unsightly. Concerns have also been raised over the desirability of a property where parking is restricted outside and if it affects the value of the property. Single and double yellow line restrictions do not solely apply to the road; they apply to the highway, this includes footpaths, verges and driveways (within the highway). 

A restricted parking zone operates in the same way as a single or double yellow line, however only entry signs are placed at each entrance to the zone. No lines are placed on the ground. 

A residents’ parking scheme is designed to remove long term parking and give residents a greater opportunity to park close to their home. A residents parking scheme, where possible is introduced using entry signs only, to reduce the visual impact of the scheme and to reduce ongoing maintenance. The current residents parking policy allows a household only two parking permits. A permit currently costs £50 per annum. Residents’ visitors would require visitors’ permits which currently cost £10 per book and contain 10 daily permits. A maximum of 2 books may be purchased per month.

A residents’ parking scheme is usually implemented under the following circumstances:-

  1.   i.     Residents are unable to park because at least 40% of available kerb space is occupied by non-residents during the working day, usually commuters near a town centre or factory premises, who should be using alternative parking that is provided.
  2.  ii.     At least 50% of the properties affected have no off-street parking allocation.

   3. iii.     There is sufficient on-street space to accommodate all vehicles owned by residents who wish to participate in the scheme. 

A Residents parking scheme would need to gain significant support from both local residents and the wider community. This is due to the impact previous residents parking schemes have had on surrounding streets. It is therefore implemented on a larger zonal basis consisting of several streets.

It must be noted that Leicestershire County Council will not consider the implementation of restrictions at an isolated location in a residential area, such as one road, as this only transfer the problem to adjacent areas.

Gracedieu Road does not meet the criteria set for the introduction of residents parking. Evidence has shown that where there is sufficient off-street parking available very few people take advantage of a residents’ permit.

83 residents rejected proposed parking restrictions in 2011 with little no change to the environment.

If the parking is causing an obstruction or a hazard then the Police do have powers to ticket such vehicles and should be reported.
With the evidence available any parking restrictions cannot be justified at this current time.

Residents experiencing difficulties exiting their driveways in the first instance should apply for a protective entrance marking; which an advisory road marking that denotes where there is an access that needs to be kept clear. As the marking is designed to benefit a private individual there is a charge for getting the marking put down. This can be applied for through Customer Services.

I appreciate that this may not be the outcome that you desire, however I hope that the above provides adequate explanation for our decision.

Share this page:

Last updated: