Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
Along with almost 1,700 signatures from a similar online petition, I present this petition of residents from across Plymouth, Plymstock and the rest of my South West Devon constituency about the ongoing closure of Mount Batten beach and peninsula.
This important city beach, accessible by public transport and used by thousands, has been closed since 10 July 2026, when significantly high levels of asbestos fibres were discovered in the sand. Fencing has been erected around the entire area. Since then, over 140 local residents have attended a meeting to raise their concerns about what this closure means for the local community, including businesses located at the beach, and campaigners have continued speaking out about the need to find a way to reopen the beach.
The petition calls on Plymouth City council and the Government to do all they can to ensure that measures be taken to see the beach safely reopened and safeguarded for future generations. The fight continues.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of South West Devon and the surrounding area,
Declares that the continued closure of Mount Batten Beach peninsula is having a significant impact on local residents, sea swimmers, watersports users, businesses and the wider community; further declares that residents want to see the site reopened safely as soon as possible; further notes that specialist expertise is required to identify the source of the asbestos contamination and determine the steps needed to enable the safe reopening of the site.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government and Plymouth City Council to do whatever it takes to secure the necessary specialist expertise as soon as possible, provide the community with clear answers on the next steps, and work at pace towards the safe reopening of Mount Batten Beach and peninsula.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003237]
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
The balance between nature and green space and the need for housing is a delicate one, and it is always really sad when people who wish to maintain open spaces between villages are described as nimbys when they are simply trying to maintain good mental health for their communities.
The green belt was created to ensure protected open land of high quality between communities, and it serves a purpose, so it is deeply concerning to see new legislation erode that purpose and local decision making on sites coming forward when there is no relevant local plan. This has led to residents in Mid Dorset and North Poole to ask me to present their petition, signed by over 900 local people, to request that the House of Commons urge the Government to uphold the purpose of green belt and demonstrate this by calling in and rejecting the planning application for 1,200 homes on green belt between Merley and Bearwood.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Mid Dorset and North Poole,
Declares that the Green Belt land between Bearwood and Merley is a precious, high-quality green space providing a natural buffer between the two communities; further declares this land that supports local wildlife and gives residents access to valuable open space; further declares that the Government’s plan to build 1,200 homes on this land as part of the proposed Canford Garden Village development would undermine the purposes of Green Belt set out by the National Planning Policy Framework, namely to prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another and to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; further declares that the people of Mid Dorset and North Poole are concerned about the erosion of local decision making in the planning process, and want their voices to be heard in the context of this planned housing development.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to uphold the key purposes of Green Belt set out in the National Planning Policy Framework by calling in and rejecting the planning application for 1,200 homes to be built on the Green Belt land between Bearwood and Merley.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003238]
Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
In the Government’s own consultation about the expansion of Leicester, nine out of 10 people said that they were against it. Now, with millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money wasted so far, Ministers are having to do a complete reworking of this whole chaotic, undemocratic process, amid accusations of gerrymandering. Despite this, the Mayor of Leicester and the Government want to press on regardless. Local people do not want this, so I present this petition, which is part of a county-wide petition that has gained 40,000 signatures. I would like to thank everyone who signed it. We are making progress.
The petition states:
“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to halt and reconsider any proposals for the expansion of Leicester City Council's boundaries, and to ensure that the views of local residents are fully considered before any changes are implemented, thereby protecting the character, identity and independence of the aforementioned communities.
And the petitioners remain, etc.”
And I agree.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Harborough, Oadby & Wigston,
Declares that the petitioners oppose any proposal to extend the boundaries of Leicester City Council in a manner that would incorporate the communities of Great Glen, Wistow, Newton Harcourt and Little Stretton into the City of Leicester; and further declares that these communities possess distinct identities, histories and local governance arrangements, and that any boundary changes which remove them from their existing district and parish structures would undermine local representation and community cohesion.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to halt and reconsider any proposals for the expansion of Leicester City Council's boundaries, and to ensure that the views of local residents are fully considered before any changes are implemented, thereby protecting the character, identity and independence of the aforementioned communities.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003239]
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
This petition calls on the Government to abandon their plans to force a local government reorganisation designed by the cities of Lincoln and Leicester across our rural communities in Rutland, Stamford and the Harborough and Stamford villages. In every single proposal, the Government are imposing the least popular option on our communities. That is why in the last few weeks there have been 1,326 hand-written signatures from residents, on top of 7,249 online, as part of 40,000 people across Leicestershire. Therefore, 8,573 are rejecting the Government’s plans for our communities.
The 1,326 petitioners
“therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take into account the concerns of the petitioners and reject the current proposals for local government reorganisation”
being imposed on us.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that the petitioners oppose Government plans to break up local government across Leicestershire, Rutland and Lincolnshire by imposing the proposals of the cities of Leicester and Lincoln; further declares that residents of Rutland and the Harborough villages oppose being forced into a sprawling Leicestershire Council serving over 578,000 people; further declares that residents of Stamford and South Kesteven oppose being forced into a council serving 574,000 people stretching from Gainsborough to Stamford; and further declares that residents of the Harborough villages of Thurnby, Bushby, Scraptoft and Stoughton do not consent to being taken over by the City of Leicester.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take into account the concerns of the petitioners and reject the current proposals for local government reorganisation in Leicestershire, Rutland and Lincolnshire.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003240]