Reply to THIS thread
Start a NEW Talkback Thread
Talkback Home

Uncontested by-election - Lianne Richards (19th Nov 2018 - 12:22:05) A vacant seat on Bramshott and Liphook Parish Council has been filled without the need of an election. A by-election had been scheduled for Thursday 13 December 2018, however, only one candidate came forward to fill the position. As a result independent candidate, Martin Charles Hall, of Canada Way, Liphook, has been elected to fill the vacant seat on Bramshott and Liphook Parish Council.

Re: Uncontested by-election - Dawn Hoskins (19th Nov 2018 - 15:53:09) Well, good for him. that has saved us thousands of pounds and I'm surprised given the current state of affairs that anyone wants to go near it.

Re: Uncontested by-election - helen (19th Nov 2018 - 21:54:40) At Parish Council level no candidate is endorsed by a political party, so all are independent. Party Politics comes into play at District Council level where they have only 2 Councillors, I believe who are from Bordon/ Whitehill area, who are not Conservative.

Re: Uncontested by-election - Penny (20th Nov 2018 - 11:32:54) At a Parish level anyone can stand on a party political ticket or anything else for that matter. They are not funded in the same way by the political parties but are encouraged and given support. Some Parish Councillors also serve on the District Council and obviously if they are a Conservative District Councillor they will be a Conservative Parish Councillor. On EHDC at the moment there are no Lib Dem Councillors, only one Independent who contested and won the Petersfield seat at a By Election. The rest of the Councillors on EHDC are Conservative. In the 2015 EHDC elections 5 Lib Dem Councillors were elected but they crossed the floor and now serve as Conservative Councillors. I do endorse Dawn Hoskins' post - who would want to be on Bramshott & Liphook Parish Council currently given the state it is in. The only hope for Bramshott & Liphook and its Council is for people who have the interests of the Parish at heart to come forward, stand and be elected at the elections in 2019 in the hope that the wreckers with their bullying and divisive tactics will not be re-elected.

Re: Uncontested by-election - Dawn Hoskins (20th Nov 2018 - 11:58:04) Agree Penny Whether or not you will get an easy time of it will depend on whether you are for or against housing on the South down National Park. The SDNP have advised that they will not even accept a Neighbourhood Plan that suggests houses in the SDNP, yet the majority of councillors that represent us at EHDC are happy for us to spend vast sums on getting a plan drawn up which says exactly that - only to have the SDNP refuse to accept it. The people with monetary interests in the land are very powerful in local politics at the moment. Of course, they want houses on it as it will make them vast sums of money, but it should not be the case that any councillor who stands against the idea is berated and humiliated by other councillors. Especially when it is the taxpayers of Liphook who will be paying for a wasted neighbourhood plan if these silly people choose to put it in as a recommendation. It really is playground worthy behaviour, but sadly when you are the recipient of constant bullying it affects your life in every way.

Re: Uncontested by-election - Jane Ives (20th Nov 2018 - 13:26:26) Dawn you're quite correct about the SDNP and the Neighbourhood Development Plan except EHDC aren't saying what you think. They are in fact well aware of the constraints of the national park and, although they may wish it were different, they accept this as fact. You do the NDP Steering Group an injustice if they are the silly people you are referring to. They are working very closely with both planning authorities to make sure they get it spot on. The chances are that housing allocations will follow pretty closely the line that EHDC take in their revised Local Plan currently being drafted. The South Downs National Park have made it quite clear that they won't accept a plan with large scale development in the park and the steering group and the parish council are very well aware of this fact. Of course, the South Downs Local Plan is currently going through its consultation process so it isn't a done deal yet but I believe it is as good as when it comes to Liphook. What the steering group have to do in order for the plan to pass examination is to demonstrate that it has looked at ALL options. That means it HAS to consider the national park, it HAS to consider all the legislation and policies that apply. So it may appear that the steering group are 'wasting money' on considering the national park, but it is an essential piece of the exercise. It is, of course, a community led plan - councillors should not interfere with the process (or that could also cause the plan to fail at examination) - and it should represent everyone's views if at all possible. Don't forget too there's much more to a neighbourhood plan than housing - there's transport, recreation, conservation, open spaces, accessibility - all of these items need consideration for Liphook and surrounds. The NDP consultant has stated quite emphatically (in the published report) the risk that the Steering Group/Parish Council would take if it included large scale development on the national park and, certainly when I was on the council, that view was made quite clear to all councillors who understood even if some didn't like it (and it is a small minority who didn't like it). Me personally I think it's great news, as I was always keen to protect the national park and still hold that view.

Re: Uncontested by-election - lucy (20th Nov 2018 - 13:35:08) Hi Penny, did not understand what you meant by " anyone can stand at Parish Council level on a political ticket" ? please explain?

Re: Uncontested by-election - Ian (20th Nov 2018 - 13:43:33) Most people have a vested interest, for example Dawn we know your objections to housing are influenced by your personal agenda to prevent development near your home.

Re: Uncontested by-election - Dawn Hoskins (21st Nov 2018 - 10:23:31) Hi Ian Just to clarify I don't mind if houses are built on the Business Centre - what I object to is cars parking on Hollywater Road [which everybody agrees is a deathtrap]. So I'm not against housing in any location only against the inadequate provision for cars in an area that has no other reliable means of transport than motor vehicles. I personally believe that we need more housing (I know this is not a popular view). It is the chronic lack of housing in the private and the rented sector that forces up prices so they are out of reach of local youngsters who have grown up here. Every town and village in the South is facing the same problem - more people than it can house and a whole generation of 20 - 30 somethings still living with their parents. Just clarifying that point as it seemed that you were saying I was against housing and that was my 'agenda'. The plans that are being promoted to build on the SDNP I do not agree with. Every town and village around the outside of the SDNP will want to intrude upon it. Just a little bit - and then just another little bit etc. The point of having a clear line drawn in the sand is to protect what we consider sacrosanct. Build on the brownfield sites yes - like Bleachers Yard, or indeed Passfield Business Centre but leave the green fields alone.

Re: Uncontested by-election - penny (21st Nov 2018 - 13:45:16) Lucy, Parish and Town councils are the first tier of Local Government and are in the main non-political. However there is nothing to stop a candidate standing for a parish council under the ticket of a political party, independent or anything else such as a ticket representing local interest. Dawn the SDNP as you know have their own planning authority. This is completely separate from EHDC who have no say in planning in the SDNP. However the SDNP do have to take a quota for the building of new houses – it is their decision as to where the building will take place.

Re: Uncontested by-election - Lucy (21st Nov 2018 - 18:26:23) Still none the wiser by what you mean as a ticket? EhDC have their own council and councillors who are also supposed to be representing local interests? What does an EHDC ticket mean exactly ?

Re: Uncontested by-election - Dawn Hoskins (22nd Nov 2018 - 12:03:19) Hi Penny, As the neighborhood plan for Liphook covers land in both the EHDC and South Downs National Park - It is my understanding that both parties have to agree to the plan. If either party refuse it - it cannot go ahead. It is also my understanding that the South Downs National Park have already given their view, verbally and in writing, that the plan cannot and will not be accepted if it proposes that houses be built on the Liphook part of the National Park land. It is quite simple really. Of course, I understand that any neighborhood planning needs to look at all viable options, but the SDNP is not a viable option. That isn't my opinion it is the opinion of the SDNP.

Re: Uncontested by-election - TJ (22nd Nov 2018 - 12:04:58) 'Ticket' is just a tag to say you are aligned to something. So for example a candidate may stand as a Conservative (other parties are available), in order to draw voters who follow a particular party. At the lower level of councils, it is unlikely that candidates would be specifically selected by a party. Standing aligned to a party is seen as having a 'ticket' to gain votes from the party supporters. In all likelihood the candidate would need to be a member of said party, but not necessarily endorsed by them.

Re: Uncontested by-election - Penny (22nd Nov 2018 - 13:41:06) Well answered TJ. That is exactly what a ticket in this context means.

Re: Uncontested by-election - Penny (22nd Nov 2018 - 16:24:50) Dawn I wasn’t talking about the Neighbourhood Plan. I was just making the point that the SDNP Planning Authority have take a quota of houses (open market and affordable) to be built in the SDNP to comply with demand. In April 2018 they submitted the first Local Plan for the whole of the South Downs National Park to the Government for examination. Once adopted, the new South Downs Local Plan will replace the existing planning policies operating across the South Downs National Park. If the SDNP Planning Authority don’t want to build in the parts of Liphook which are in the SDNP then they will have to release areas of land elsewhere in the SDNP and this will be in their local plan.

Re: Uncontested by-election - lucy (22nd Nov 2018 - 18:39:58) I do not think it works that way re housing in the SDNPA. The quotas they are given are not given for Liphook, as there is no settlement within the Park for Liphook. Liphook is not mentioned anywhere within the plan as there are no urban areas of Liphook within the Park, it is all undeveloped agricultural land with a few houses dotted within. There does not seem to be any need in their mind to build on undeveloped land for the main settlement of liphook which is not within the Park Area. The housing numbers can be accomodated within settlements such as Midhurst Petersfield, Petworth, Newhaven etc Liss Greatham, which are all settlements totally within the Park.

Re: Uncontested by-election - Dawn Hoskins (23rd Nov 2018 - 12:27:45) Lucy Hi, Yes - this is my understanding of the National Park too. There are a number of villages already in the National Park and they require the management & planning of their amenities and facilities in the same way that villages situated in other planning 'areas' do - hence the SDNP having its own plan. I believe this is also the reason the SDNP have given when stating that any reference housing in the Liphook Neighbourhood Plan of planning to encroach or build houses upon the Liphook part of the SDNP will doom it to failure and also, therefore, be a massive waste of time, effort, energy and [more importantly], taxpayers money!

Reply to THIS thread
Talkback Home