Blog

ADD UPDATE, 22 March 2018: Last week, Sarah Charters, a resident of Bishopstoke, sent an official letter of complaint to Eastleigh Borough Council (EBC) accusing Liberal Democrat councillors of misleading local people about Eastleigh’s Local Plan in their leaflets and social media.

She addressed her letter to Richard Ward, EBC’s monitoring officer, and – in the accompanying Code of Conduct documentation – specifically cited Cllrs Trevor Mignot, Vickieye Parkinson and Anne Winstanley (the latter two pictured with Vince Cable, leader of the Liberal Democrats) for criticism. We posted her letter on 16 March and said we would also publish any reply.

On Tuesday, 20 March, Sarah Charters received the following reply for Richard Ward:

STARTS

Subject: RE: Complaint Against Cllrs Trevor Mignot, Vickieye Parkinson and Anne Winstanley

Dear Mrs Charters,

I refer to your code of conduct complaint.

The “Code of Conduct” system is designed to deal with the ethical conduct of Councillors whilst acting as Councillors. Accordingly under it I can investigate matters such as Councillors not declaring interests, bullying staff or disrupting meetings etc. It would not be appropriate to use the code to look at the statements of intended candidates in election or political literature.

The Electoral Commission has published the following guidance regarding political literature:

“In general, political campaign material in the UK is not regulated, and it is a matter for voters to decide on the basis of such material whether they consider it accurate or not. This includes the design of the material. There is one exception to this, which is making or publishing a false statement of fact in relation to a candidate’s personal character or conduct (not their political views or conduct), unless there are reasonable grounds to believe the statement is true. The Commission does not regulate this rule however, and any allegations should be made to the police.

“The Advertising Standards Authority regulates advertising, but non-broadcast political material whose principal function is to influence voters is exempt from its remit. Further, as broadcast political advertising is prohibited in the UK, Ofcom retains responsibility for considering whether television and radio advertisements have been directed towards a political end or placed by a body whose aims are wholly or mainly of a political nature.

“The Electoral Commission is also not responsible for regulating party election broadcasts (PEBs), however, these must observe the wider law – for example, on copyright, libel, contempt, obscenity, incitement to racial hatred or violence. In addition, all broadcasters’ PEBs must also comply with the harm and offence and incitement rules of the Ofcom Broadcasting Code. BBC PEBs must comply with relevant provisions of the BBC Editorial Guidelines. More information on the production rules for PEBs can be found on the website of the Broadcaster Liaison Group here. The Commission also has no role in the arrangements for any broadcast leadership debates, which are managed between the relevant broadcasters and political parties directly. The content of any broadcast leadership debates must comply with the Ofcom Broadcasting Code and/or the BBC Editorial Guidelines as appropriate.

“The wider law does generally apply to political campaign material, and if you believe any material breaches have been made, for example, with regard to equalities or public order legislation, you may wish to report this to the police or seek your own legal advice”

With regard to your concerns regarding the local plan as you may be aware the Council has to comply with a highly complex legal procedure and with detailed consultation requirements and ultimately has to convince an Independent planning inspector appointed by the Government. The procedure allows for detailed participation by members of the public including making their concerns known to the independent inspector. Further details of the local plan process can be found on the Council’s web site and also on the websites of organisations such as the CPRE.

Kind regards,

Richard Ward
Monitoring Officer
Strategy – Monitoring Officer
Eastleigh Borough Council | Eastleigh House | Upper Market Street | Eastleigh | SO50 9YN

ENDS

ADD DISCLAIMER, 19 March 2018: In the last few weeks, ADD has been made aware of a Twitter account under the name ‘Keith buildaHouse’, which refers to the leader of Eastleigh Borough Council and the draft Eastleigh Local Plan. ADD wishes to make clear that this account has no connection to our campaign and we have no knowledge of who is behind it.

ADD UPDATE, 16 March 2018: Sarah Charters, a resident of Bishopstoke, yesterday sent an official letter of complaint to Eastleigh Borough Council (EBC) accusing Liberal Democrat councillors of misleading local people about Eastleigh’s Local Plan in their leaflets and social media.

Addressing her letter to Richard Ward, EBC’s monitoring officer, and specifically citing Cllrs Vickieye Parkinson, Anne Winstanley (both pictured with Vince Cable, leader of the Liberal Democrats) and Trevor Mignot in the formal documentation, she said:

“I am writing to complain about the misleading communications being provided to the residents of Bishopstoke by Liberal Democrat Councillors through the ‘Bishopstoke Focus’ electioneering leaflets and social media.

Please note that this is not a complaint about the policy being put forward, but the way in which it is being communicated.

Having been a Liberal Democrat voter for many years, I thought the party represented strong community values and an honest and balanced approach to local and national politics.

I have been horrified by the way the Eastleigh Borough Council has been conducting itself through the ‘emerging local plan’ and believe that the way politics is being practised locally is dishonest and immoral.

I would be grateful if you could respond to me with an explanation of my following observations:

1. In the Bishopstoke Focus for January 2018, the Bishopstoke Councillors have stated that they are ‘Fighting for Bishopstoke’ in that they are opposing building across greenfields between Bishopstoke and West End. However, nowhere within this leaflet does it mention that the Bishopstoke Councillors are ‘fighting for’ 5,200 houses to be built within Bishopstoke and Fair Oak [so-called options B and C].

2. The same leaflet states that local Conservative MPs called on the Borough Council to urge more work on a plan that would create an ‘urban sprawl’ and yet they have not told local residents that the ‘urban sprawl’ that the Liberal Democrats wish to create within Bishopstoke and Fair Oak will contain 2,000 more houses than the Government requires. It seems that the author of the leaflet is hypocritical.

3. The Christmas and New Year 2017/18 leaflet states that the alternative option promoted by Mims Davis MP and colleagues comes with no infrastructure improvements and will cause more road gridlock but does not even mention that there is a plan to build 5,200 houses in Bishopstoke and Fair Oak, and that current traffic impact report indicates there will be no improvement to the current traffic chaos, let alone acknowledge the additional traffic chaos the scheme will cause in Allbrook.

4. It is folly to suggest that the additional traffic caused by the additional 5,200 homes will all exit Bishopstoke and Fair Oak via a new M3 link road. I believe the Liberal Democrat Councillors should be advising Bishopstoke residents that, due to their preferred option for the Local Plan, Bishopstoke residents will need to accept much heavier traffic within many entry / exit points from Bishopstoke.

5. The photographs used by the Liberal Democrat Councillors show them smiling next to green fields, which gives the impression that they are protecting our local rural areas but the preferred option of building on B and C is viewed as being the most environmentally damaging by organisations such as the Woodland Trust and Campaign to Protect Rural England, as well as wildlife expert Chris Packham.

6. A video both shared and paid promoted on Facebook by Eastleigh Borough Council, shows the Liberal Democrat Councillors talking about protecting our ancient woodland. Encircling ancient woodland with housing and building a major road through a narrow field which separates two parts of the ancient woodland (Stoke Park Woods and Crowdhill Copse / Upper Barn Copse) cannot be viewed as protecting ancient woodland as it will impact on the natural habitat through noise pollution, loss of migratory routes and loss of hedgerows / verges used by a huge variety of wildlife. Is this not misinformation?

7. The councillors also suggest that they are protecting the woodland for local residents. Currently this green space (the ancient woodland and green fields between them) is enjoyed by thousands of Bishopstoke / Eastleigh / Fair Oak residents as a peaceful, safe, pollution free environment to exercise (walking, dog walking, jogging, horse riding, cycling etc) and enjoy nature. The preferred option of building on B and C will destroy this natural heritage and an environment that promotes health and wellbeing of local residents forever.

The misleading information being provided to all residents of Bishopstoke is likely to influence their voting in local elections and is likely to provide a false sense of reassurance that Bishopstoke will not be adversely by the Liberal Democrats preferred option.

I believe that the same misleading communications are being provided to the residents of Fair Oak.

At a meeting with Cllr Anne Winstanley and Cllr Vickieye Parkinson on Monday 12th March 2018, I asked why the truth had been misrepresented and requested that the next edition of the Bishopstoke Focus clearly outlines what the Bishopstoke Councillors have voted for. I was informed that it was their publication and they could write what they wanted. I was given a very clear message that they had no intent to tell the whole truth in the Bishopstoke Focus, thereby removing the opportunity for the voting public to make an informed decision in the forthcoming local elections.

I would be very grateful for your consideration of my complaint about misleading communications from the Liberal Democrat councillors which, sadly, I can only conclude are part of a wider dishonest electioneering campaign to reduce the opposition to options B and C by local residents.

I am anxious that my complaint will not receive due consideration within Eastleigh Borough Council because I believe there has been a startling lack of democratic rigour throughout the whole process of drawing up the local plan. I fear my complaint will either be ignored or manipulated to provide further misinformation. I therefore request a review of my complaint at a national, as well as local, party level.

As mentioned, I have always been a loyal supporter of Liberal Democrat policy because of the values and the party represents. I feel let down and ashamed by the behaviour exhibited by the councillors I voted for and would therefore welcome an early response to my complaint.

With kind regards,

Sarah Charters
Bishopstoke Resident

ENDS

We will publish any reply that Sarah Charters may receive.

ADD UPDATE, 12 March 2018: We thought the time was right to post the letter to the Daily Echo below, published on 28 December 2017, which refutes a suggestion made by Martin Kyrle, former Mayor of Eastleigh, that everyone protesting against Eastleigh’s Local Plan are “amateurs”! We thank David Betts, a parish councillor for Allbrook & North Boyatt, for standing up for the professionals opposed to, and working hard to prevent, Eastleigh’s monstrous Local Plan.

Under the heading “Not so many amateurs protesting”, David Betts wrote (click here for image):

“I REFER to the letter from Martin Kyrle (December 20) in which he refers to the recent Local Plan meeting at the Ageas Hilton at which Eastleigh Borough Council voted in favour of a highly controversial proposal to support the council leadership in the development of some 5,000+ homes and a new road to the North of Bishopstoke that will traverse areas close to ancient woodland and across the highly protected Itchen Valley – a Special Area of Conservation protected at the highest level.

“I am usually of the opinion that, at my age, 72, there is little to surprise me, but I truly believe Mr Kyrle has succeeded in raising arrogance to a new level of prominence and adopting a view totally inappropriate for someone in his position.

“He objects to criticism of his council colleagues when accused of “not listening”, but listening is more than hearing the words, it is also having an open mind to absorb input from all sides and make objective decisions. In this regard the council certainly were not listening and the decision on the plan was in direct opposition to extensive, well-informed opinion based on sound professional knowledge and experience from a wide swathe of expertise wholly relevant to the subject.

“Mr Kyrle refers to the “protesters” as amateurs and the council planning officers as “professionals” who, of course, are therefore omniscient and therefore able to make decisions impervious to challenge and in fact, before all relevant evidence is collated, which is certainly the case here!

“Mr Kyrle would do well to check his facts before expounding on the competencies of substantive individuals whose views differ from his. There were some 33 public speakers at the meeting and objectors to the plan were very much in the majority – certainly over 30. Referring to these individuals as “amateurs” is dangerous stuff indeed Mr Kyrle!

“Among their number we find, amongst others, professional surveyors, architects, highway engineers, environmental specialists and the backing of noted legal counsel with deep planning expertise.

“Objectors also included representatives from the Woodland Trust, Angling Trust and Campaign to Protect Rural England, amongst other notable organisations. The list also of professional qualifications extant within the group would do great credit to any similar number in local government or any branch of public service.

“Amateurs? I think not Mr Kyrle and I believe you should spend some time extracting your foot from your mouth!

“I am confident that many other objecting entities will be evident over the coming months in respect of the Local Plan and it is incumbent on local councillors to listen. This is one of, if the not the most, important planning decision to be made in Eastleigh for a generation. It is not a rehearsal and has to be made with the support of the local community as a whole, not a council leadership with entrenched views and closed ears.

“Eastleigh deserves better – much better!”

DAVID J BETTS, Allbrook

Woodland Trust, 5 March 2018: Prime Minister Theresa May has announced plans to overhaul England’s planning policy that will afford ancient woodland far more robust protection. The Woodland Trust has led the charge for decades for ancient woods to be given the same protection as our manmade heritage. It is now proposed that the National Planning Policy Framework will state “development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats such as ancient woodland should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons.” Beccy Speight, Woodland Trust CEO, said: “At last! The Government’s decision to amend planning policy to robustly – finally – protect ancient woodland is great news, and not before time.”

Letter to the Daily Echo, 23 February 2018: The letter above, about Eastleigh’s Local Plan, appeared in the Echo today. Under the heading “Not just one scandal…”, it reads:

“EASTLEIGH Borough Council’s plan to build 5,200 houses across a vast swathe of pristine rural landscape with no infrastructure has caused quite a scandal. I suggest that this complex issue is really three separate scandals.

Firstly, the planning decision made by the council is the worst possible choice because it provides the least public benefit at the greatest public cost. They chose to ignore an urban fringe site with potential for a railway station and a motorway junction and instead decided to destroy a beautiful and biodiverse rural area with no sustainable infrastructure. This is a matter for HM Planning Inspectorate.

Secondly, the council has conducted itself in a highly irregular manner. We now know the planning decision was pre-determined several years ago and the subsequent consultation process has been an obvious sham. The motive for the choice of site cannot be based on serving the public interest because it is objectively the worst possible choice, so another motive must be at work.

Conspiracy and deception are not acceptable behaviours for public officials in this country. This warrants an investigation by the criminal justice system.

Thirdly, it is scandalous that England’s system of local government is so dysfunctional that a politician like Keith House (leader of Eastleigh council for 25 years!) can seize so much power and hold onto it for so long. The rot is so deep that he is able to sacrifice the public interest for his own personal agenda on such an enormous scale and to feel quite confident doing so in plain sight. It is time to impose short maximum terms for local government posts and to render the career politician extinct.”

NAME AND ADDRESS SUPPLIED

Eastleigh News, 21 February 2018: Eastleigh’s MP has revealed a brown field site ‘in the centre of Eastleigh’ – currently owned by Network Rail – could be re-developed for housing. In a press release Mims Davies describes a recent meeting with roads minister Jesse Norman in which she presented the case for a Chickenhall Lane link road. During the meeting she says officials set out why bidding for funding to support the proposed road had so far ‘been unsuccessful’. One of the reasons was that the Network Rail land could potentially be used for housing. So far, however, Eastleigh council has ignored this opportunity and instead chosen green fields north of Bishopstoke and Fair Oak (known as options B and C) for its Local Plan.

Daily Echo, 21 February 2018: AN ACTION group has hit out at the leader of the Lib Dems for backing plans on thousands of new homes near ancient woodland. Members of Action against Destructive Development Eastleigh (ADD) said Vince Cable “talked complete nonsense about local issues” when he visited Eastleigh last week. As previously reported, during his visit, Sir Vince met town bosses and backed their Local Plan to meet the housing need across the borough. These include proposals to build 5,200 new homes near ancient woodland between Fair Oak and Bishopstoke. ADD said: “Cable is an honourable man, but we do not imagine that he has had time to study the borough’s Local Plan and the evidence (or lack of) to support it.”

ADD UPDATE, 14 February 2018: Although ADD is fiercely politically neutral, it reserves the right to speak out when a politician of any persuasion talks complete nonsense about local issues.

On a visit to Eastleigh last week, Liberal Democrat leader Sir Vince Cable made some outrageously misleading comments about the council’s plans to submerge the villages of Bishopstoke, Fair Oak and Allbrook and wreak havoc on the natural environment.

Cable is an honourable man, but we do not imagine that he has had time to study the borough’s Local Plan and the evidence (or lack of) to support it. We can safely assume that, when he spoke to the Daily Echo, he was repeating in good faith what he had been told by party colleagues in Eastleigh. In other words, he had been sold a pup.

So, let’s look at what he told the Echo about the Local Plan: “The basic strategy is to build ambitious housing developments combined with a good environmental policy. My understanding is that they [the council] are trying to create garden villages to protect the green land between Eastleigh and Southampton.

“The basic point is that this is an area that is desperate for new houses and there must be a substantial increase in supply. It has to be done in a green, sensitive manner. This is what I judge the council here are doing.”

Cable backed up these quotes with a tweet, no doubt written by someone else, that said “Now big #housing push within #greeninfrastructure meeting local need”.

So, on behalf of tens of thousands of local people, represented by seven parish councils, here are some of the questions we have for the Lib Dem leader:

1) He says there is a desperate need for new houses, but he is aware that the council is planning to build nearly two thousand more than are actually required, and does he approve of this?

2) Is he aware that the “green and sensitive” development he refers to will destroy over 800 acres of prime countryside, which his own council’s research has identified as being by far the most environmentally sensitive in the borough, leading Chris Packham to brand the plans as “eco-vandalism”?

3) What does he say to the Woodland Trust who have warned that the plans would cause serious and permanent damage to seven areas of ancient woodland?

4) What does he say to the Angling Trust who are up in arms about the extensive damage the plans would cause the River Itchen at a spot so sensitive that it is protected at a European level?

5) How will the new houses help local people when they are going to be way beyond the reach of first-time or even most second-time buyers, and far from public transport?

6) Where are the plans for garden villages? They certainly have not been made public. And what does he say to people living in Bishopstoke, Fair Oak and Allbrook, who would see their villages disappear into a mass of urban sprawl?

7) His party is committed to promoting public transport. Is he aware that Eastleigh Borough Council has refused to seriously consider the alternative area for providing the additional housing the borough needs – an area which is not only less environmentally sensitive but also nearer to existing infrastructure and, indeed, could be served by a new railway station? The only new infrastructure that the council is planning – a new link road – has been condemned by the Campaign for Better Transport and strongly criticised by Winchester City Council and Hampshire County Council.

8) Finally, has he spoken to the five former Eastleigh Lib Dem councillors who have resigned from the group in protest over the plans – and to party colleagues from Winchester who also strongly oppose them?

We have many more questions, but we know Sir Vince is a busy man. We shall send these eight questions to his office requesting a response, and post any reply that we may receive.

Daily Echo, 9 February 2018: THE leader of the Libs Dems has waded into the row over controversial plans to build 5,200 new homes on land near ancient woodland. The scheme, for land between Fair Oak and Bishopstoke, sparked  protest among residents and even led to several Lib Dem councillors quitting the party. But on a visit to Eastleigh yesterday, Mr Cable backed the council’s stance, arguing that the homes were badly needed. Mr Cable said: “The basic strategy the council has adopted seems to be right, which is to build ambitious housing developments combined with a good environmental policy.” He added new developments have “to be done in a green, sensitive manner [and] this is what I judge the council are doing.”