Motion of No Confidence submitted in Hart District Council
A motion of no confidence in Hart District Council has been submitted by Community Campaign Hart (CCH), (or as some call them Completely Concrete Hart) and the Liberal Democrats.
Apparently, they are unhappy that a new settlement at Winchfield has not been included in the Local Plan. They plan to push for Winchfield to be re-included if they manage to take over.
We think this is a bad idea for a number of reasons:
- This will add extra delay to the Local Plan process, adding to the risk that sites like Grove Farm (Netherhouse Copse) and Pale Lane (Elvetham Chase) will be given the go ahead at appeal before the Local Plan can be put in place
- Winchfield has failed testing. The main issues with the proposal are:
- groundwater and surface water flooding,
- Cost of new road infrastructure and the need to travel to Fleet for main services
- requirement for new wastewater treatment works
- too much delivery risk concentrated in one site
- impact on landscape
- impact on heritage assets and SSSIs
- CCH have completely failed to oppose the main issue: we are being asked to build too many houses. Hart Council have arbitrarily added an extra 2,000 houses to the already inflated SHMA figure of 8,000, giving a total over 10,000 houses. Tackling this would mean we don’t need a new settlement at Winchfield or Murrell Green, nor would we need Pale Lane or Grove Farm
- A new settlement at Winchfield will likely have a major impact on congestion in Church Crookham and the western edge of Fleet.
We predict a stormy council meeting on 25 May.
[Update – Statement from Conservative Council Leader]
Conservative Council Leader Stephen Parker commented:
We have a clear track record of success in running Hart Council. Despite cuts to Hart’s government funding we used Conservative ministerial contacts to reduce the cuts, froze Council tax for 6 years and made minimum increases for the last two years. At the same time we made innovative partnerships to make sure that no cuts were made to our services or to our support to the voluntary sector. We delivered the new Hart Leisure Centre, a superb facility which pays for itself with no increases to Hart’s Council tax. We listened to residents in making our Local Plan which maximises use of brownfield sites and protects our towns and villages from unwanted expansion. At no time in the last eight years of Conservative leadership have they challenged any of these successes. Residents will no doubt look forward to reading their joint manifesto.
[/Update]
[Update 2 – statement from CCH]
Statement about motion to bring about a vote for Council Leader
Until fairly recently Hart District Council had a democratic process of electing the council Leader every year at the AGM. This right was taken away by the then Conservative administration, presumably because they realised that as is the case now there would be times when they did not have a majority on the council.
The Conservatives forced through the instigation of a 4 year term for the council Leader, the maximum period they could have gone for without falling foul of legislation.
Out of 33 councillors there are 14 Conservative, 10 Community Campaign, 8 Lib Dems and 1 Hook Independent. No one party have the 17 councillors required to hold a majority on the council.
The Community Campaign have asked the current Leader if he’d be willing to continue as Leader with a proportional Cabinet made up of 3 Conservatives, 2 Lib Dems and 2 Community Campaign members. Given the proportionality of such a Cabinet it does not seem to be an unreasonable request.
We await his response. However, should the Conservatives not wish to work with a cross party partnership then we believe that the Council should have the right to elect a new Leader.
The nature of the council’s constitution is such that in order to bring about the opportunity to elect a new Leader a motion to withdraw support for the current leadership needs to be lodged 7 clear working days before the council’s AGM.
The full motion moved by Cllr. James Radley of the Community Campaign reads;
The council wishes to use this AGM, as it represents the traditional point in the municipal year, to undertake a vote for the leader of council. To bring about such a vote the constitution requires that a vote to remove the current leader first be tabled. To this end this council retracts support for the current leader and does so as required by the constitution by voting to ‘remove from office the current Leader of the Council and agrees that a new Leader should be elected forthwith’.
[/Update 2]
[Update 3: Lib dems tweet to say they don’t support new settlement at Winchfield]
[/Update 3]
Can’t stand what CCH stand for, even worse than the Conservatives to be honest. Wouldn’t vote for them. I don’t think they have the best interest of Hart at all.
CCH stands for Completely Concrete Hart. JUst to clear that up!
Now the Lib Dems say they won’t support a new settlement at Winchfield
What is this urban extension Chris Blake?
Pyestock is the one I’m referring to. The one that fills in the gap between fleet and farnborough and creates a 14km long single urban conurbation
Same way that winchfield fills up the gap between HW and Hook. Difference is Hartland park would otherwise be a mega distribution centre.
Hartland Village is described as a new settlement. If you really think it’s an urban extension, then by that definition so is Winchfield.
If the councillors developed a backbone between them, and challenged the housing numbers, we wouldn’t need either Winchfield or MUrrell Green, and Hartland Village could be postponed for a decade.
I could say that the path to the local plan has been smooth, efficient and well thought through. That doesn’t make it so. To me it’s an urban extension because it extends fleet right up to farnborough or vice versa in an existing urban area. I haven’t looked at the old winchfield plan in some time and can’t recall if there are still gaps between the settlements or not. So yes it may well join the dots to the west of Hart.
It’s definitely not defined as an urban extension. I think you have to go with the accepted definition rather than your own.
Kate – No it’s not defined that way – that would make their decision even more untenable. As to having to accept their definition – I don’t remember many of the people on here accepting the original plans for Winchfield. Basically, everybody makes mistakes, regardless of whether they are in power or not. So, I for one, like this pressure group, will continue to hold our elected representatives to account and not roll over and just “accept” their decisions.
In fairness of balance prehaps you might read what CCH have actually said Until fairly recently Hart District Council had a democratic process of electing the council Leader every year at the AGM. This right was taken away by the then Conservative administration, presumably because they realised that as is the case now there would be times when they did not have a majority on the council.
The Conservatives forced through the instigation of a 4 year term for the council Leader, the maximum period they could have gone for without falling foul of legislation.
Out of 33 councillors there are 14 Conservative, 10 Community Campaign, 8 Lib Dems and 1 Hook Independent. No one party have the 17 councillors required to hold a majority on the council.
The Community Campaign have asked the current Leader if he’d be willing to continue as Leader with a proportional Cabinet made up of 3 Conservatives, 2 Lib Dems and 2 Community Campaign members. Given the proportionality of such a Cabinet it does not seem to be an unreasonable request.
We await his response. However, should the Conservatives not wish to work with a cross party partnership then we believe that the Council should have the right to elect a new Leader.
The nature of the council’s constitution is such that in order to bring about the opportunity to elect a new Leader a motion to withdraw support for the current leadership needs to be lodged 7 clear working days before the council’s AGM.
The full motion moved by Cllr. James Radley of the Community Campaign reads;
The council wishes to use this AGM, as it represents the traditional point in the municipal year, to undertake a vote for the leader of council. To bring about such a vote the constitution requires that a vote to remove the current leader first be tabled. To this end this council retracts support for the current leader and does so as required by the constitution by voting to ‘remove from office the current Leader of the Council and agrees that a new Leader should be elected forthwith’.
So this is merely a way of removing Mr Parker from the role of council leader? Nothing to do with Winchfield?
Thank you Tony. That statement wasn’t on their website when I published this morning. Post updated with their response.
http://www.cchart.org.uk/
link for those that wish to go to the original source
As I read this it more about getting a concil that works together for all the peole rather than a few to quote one conservative leader. If I am reading it correctly it about returning to a coalition not getting rid of Steve Parker
I am no fan of Parker, but if you believe that, then I have a bridge I’d like to sell you
My suspicions tend to align with you, David, in this instance.
While I accept my view in this group in is a minority voice, I’d respectfully remind you that when the people of Hart were asked to vote on the plan before, they chose Winchfield and no urban extensions. The council have decided no winchfield and to push ahead with a damaging major urban extension. So I’d suggest CCH’s action (in respect of the plan anyway) isn’t to do with self interest, it is to do with the wishes of the people of Hart.
Winchfield is an Urban extension. Very clear from the maps published it joins with H/W
Especially when pale Lane gets developed as it inevitably will with any further delays to plan
Not sure I remember it like that. Thought the consultation was flawed.
It was flawed it should have stated new settlement location to be determined. If I remember rightly. The dot on Winchfield should never have been there
Pyestock was not an option when the earlier consultation went ahead. Residents were not given all the options. In my opinion CCH are quite destructive and not fit to run the council
Maximises use of brownfield is a bit of a stretch, the council have unable to put in place a useful register and pretty much refuse to look at any sites in urban town centre locations. Over 10 years without a local plan = bad management.
Opposition coup threatens Hart residents.
The opposition political parties on Hart Council have formed a coalition to take over the Council.
The minority Lib Dem group and the CCH political party (who previously claimed to be “independent”) have shown their true anti Conservative colours with this politically motivated move. They have posted a motion of “No Confidence” in the Conservative administration, for the Council’s Annual General Meeting on May 25th.
Conservative Council Leader Stephen Parker commented “We have a clear track record of success in running Hart Council. Despite cuts to Hart’s government funding we used Conservative ministerial contacts to reduce the cuts, froze Council tax for 6 years and made minimum increases for the last two years. At the same time we made innovative partnerships to make sure that no cuts were made to our services or to our support to the voluntary sector. We delivered the new Hart Leisure Centre, a superb facility which pays for itself with no increases to Hart’s Council tax. We listened to residents in making our Local Plan which maximises use of brownfield sites and protects our towns and villages from unwanted expansion. At no time in the last eight years of Conservative leadership have they challenged any of these successes. Residents will no doubt look forward to reading their joint manifesto. “
Read what they have acutally said rather than what you may think they have said
http://www.cchart.org.uk/
Shown their true anti-conservative colours? What on earth are you doing in politics if you believe that at any stage they were ever pro-conservative?!
Does this mean an elections?
No
I wish we could have one. I’d send the lot packing
So according to CCH the whole of the Hart District Council deserves a vote of no confidence because the minority of CCH councillors on the committee can’t have their own way? Not because the council has delayed and delayed the local plan. or failed to adequately account for the increase in required housing. But because they can’t get their own way over Winchfield.
Local politics at its best.
I’m not in favour of anything that slows down the Local Plan being put in place. The councillors really aren’t doing their jobs if they don’t challenge the numbers in the plan.
Indeed. Failure to challenge the ridiculous housing target is the biggest failing of all the political parties. Perhaps because that would require them to actually think for themselves.
Objectively assessed 8000; Subjectively guessed 10000. I was always taught to deal with facts (be objective) not if, buts and maybes. At the consultation roadshow there was no clear reasoning why an inflation of 25% on top of a generally accepted and policy led calculation of housing needs has been applied. Also beware as the 10000 is only a draft figure – so there is no guarantee this will not increase when others start to put their subjective views into the mix.
David – do we have evidence where government inspectors have rejected plans due to incorrect calculation of housing needs as a result of not following accepted calculations?
It’s a very complex area. Sadly, most of the evidence is the inspectors end up increasing the housing numbers.
CCH = Completely Concrete Hart. Our councillors really love the big developments and fail to question or challenge the volume of houses Hart is now planning, don’t they?