Simon Hicks

A letter to the Middy from two Conservative Councillors expressing concern at the unfairness of the “first past the post” electoral system of elections, which they seemed to think caused disadvantage to their party caused much amusement - put much better here by skuds.org - its seems the absurbity of our “winner takes all” electoral system is matched by the pique of local Conservatives when they fail to win in what they regard as their Sussex fiefdom!

Liberal Democrat moves to get the Conservative controlled Mid Sussex District Council to rescind its previous decision, to dispose of land at the Triangle Leisure Centre in order to build a DIY store, were narrowly defeated at an extraordinary meeting of the District Council held last Wednesday. The meeting was specially called by Liberal Democrats to discuss the issues around the selling off of council land at the Triangle.

The Council report for the meeting admits that the reason for the sale of the Triangle land is “to maximise receipts” and uses illogical legal advice on the basis it is important to separate planning issues from the sale of the land, but goes out of its way to highlight the financial reasons for selling the land without looking at the potential leisure requirements of what was a site allocated for leisure use - land that forms part of the current leisure centre car park.

The proposals directly conflict with the Council’s polices on promoting Burgess Hill Town Centre, and ensuring leisure facilities at the Triangle have the capacity to cope with an expanding town. The Council seems to be putting cash receipts for Mid Sussex ahead of the amenity of local residents and the needs of the town. The proposal would significantly increase parking and congestion problems in the area and obstruct access by school children to St Paul’s Catholic College. The Council is therefore pre-empting its own draft Core Strategy which will have to take into account expected growth in leisure needs for the area.

Whilst the Council has a duty to get the best possible value for any land it disposes of, it is currently still retains the ownership of the land, so it has the power to decide what use it is put to, irrespective of any planning issues. The decision to dispose of this land is therefore perverse given the current and future likely needs of the Triangle site for leisure use.

Meanwhile all political parties on Burgess Hill Town Council have already stated their opposition to the proposals, and their willingness to take every necessary step to object, including a possible referral to the Secretary of State for the Environment if the Council appears to approve the application when it has a conflict of interest.

It seems as soon as the local elections are over, Conservative controlled Mid Sussex District Council (MSDC) has given up its “legal challenge” to the Government imposed target of 17,100 new houses in the period to 2026 without even starting it. After all the huffing and bluster since last October they have backed down at the first hurdle having “sought legal advice” – something they could probably have told us months ago, and despite other councils such as Guildford confirming they are mounting their own legal challenges.

Without substantial government funding to provide the necessary infrastructure, the government housing targets may not be viable, and the Council should continue to look at all options. This is highlighted by the recently published Atkins report on new housing developments in East Grinstead which could significantly reduce the target for new housing in that area, given its prediction of increased transport flows, which would require substantial expenditure on a relief road. It seems it would not be viable for local developers to fund the relief road which would need central government funding.

However the same principles apply elsewhere in the district, for example for traffic flows in Burgess Hill, with traffic increasing on Leylands Road, Junction Road and Mill Road causing increased congestion and problems for local residents. The town needs a detailed plan for dealing with future traffic growth. We need a vigilant District Council that will not let developers off the hook, and ensure new developments are only allowed to go ahead if the necessary infrastructure is in place, and to lobby nationally for government targets to be reviewed and made more realistic.

Building new roads to deal with ever increasing traffic is no longer an option, this tends to channel traffic flows, encouraging further traffic growth and at best funnelling congestion a bit further along the road network. A step change in public transport use is required, particularly to help at peak times such as combating the effect of the school run. Increased regulation and control of traffic flows such as use of one way systems and parking restrictions may also be required in specific areas to protect the amenity of local residents.

If less housing is taken by East Grinstead that implies increased pressure elsewhere in the district, when Burgess Hill is already scheduled to take substantial new housing, and MSDC may have to reconsider the possibility of a new centre of development such as at Sayers Common, and further large scale expansion on the west side of Burgess Hill. We must ensure the same principles are applied elsewhere in the district, and that planners do not allow developers to cherry pick the easiest sites without paying for the necessary infrastructure – for example by leaving more difficult sites such as the old gas works at Leylands Road undeveloped.
For the latest information on the Council’s Core Strategy see: http://www.midsussex.gov.uk/page.cfm?pageID=3168

A big thank you for all those who voted Liberal Democrat in Thursday’s County Council elections, which resulted in the seat being gained from the Conservatives.   Both Burgess Hill County Council seats fell to the Liberal Democrats.

 The full result for our area which is included in the Burgess Hill Town Ward was:

The member elected for Burgess Hill Town is:
   Heather Ross (Liberal Democrat)

‘The case for supporting the Liberal Democrats is now very strong’ says today’s Guardian newspaper in an opinion piece.  Anyone ‘who cares about constitutional renewal’ should ‘vote Lib Dem’, and reminds readers ‘that on two other great crises – the debt-driven collapse of high finance and climate change – the Lib Dems led the way’. 

Similarly Polly Toynbee writing in the same paper, in an article entitled ‘Throw out bad councils, and vote for Lib Dems in Europe’ highlights the positive reasons to vote Liberal Democrat – ‘on the economy or crime co-operation, “stronger together, poorer apart” is a good Lib Dem pro-EU slogan’.  The article highlights the danger of electing a Conservative Party that is increasingly disengaged from Europe, as well as the hypocrisy of UKIP, whose leader ‘admits legally drawing £2m in EU expenses and employing his wife, whilst one of his MEP’s was jailed for money laundering and another faces prosecution for laundering money and false accounting’.

The attack on UKIP echoed earlier comments by Liberal Democrat MP, Edward Davey: ‘UKIP MEPs have attacked others over their expenses while living the high life in Brussels, charging the taxpayer, and hiding the true cost from voters.  One in six UKIP MEPs elected in 2004 has since faced criminal charges over their creative accounting. Meanwhile, UKIP turned up in the European Parliament to vote against a cap on MEPs’ earnings, against reforms to make travel more transparent, and in favour of laws aimed at keeping their expenses secret’.

Liberal Democrats have long championed reform of MEP expenses in the European Parliament, and represent a positive force for change.  Whether on green issues, promoting consumer rights, economic affairs with Vince Cable’s penetrating analysis of the current economic problems, or arguing for constitutional change, we have led the way and with your help can make a real difference.  

“Support the Lib Dems next Thursday”, says The Observer. As well as its Editorial, an article by Andrew Rawnsley praises Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats in the run-up to the elections for the European Parliament and West Sussex County Council as the one party that has consistently advocated Constitutional Reform and the one that has come out of the expenses scandal much less sleazed than either Labour or the Tories.

Mr Rawnsley stated that “Only one of the main parties has been a consistent and persistent advocate of a democratised House of Lords, a reformed Commons, fixed-term parliaments and the rest of the menu of truly sweeping constitutional reform. That party is the Liberal Democrats. They have also, incidentally, come out of the expenses scandal much less sleazed than either Labour or the Tories.”

Then from their editorial: “There is a pressing need in this country for advocacy of the EU as a good in itself, as opposed to something distasteful that occasionally suits our interests. That view does not preclude criticism of European institutions, but it eschews wrecking tactics against them. Nick Clegg is the most instinctively European leader at Westminster. That is currently a lonely position, but the Lib Dems have a decent record of taking minority stands that are later vindicated. On the environment, on civil liberties and on the mounting debt bubble, the Lib Dems were quietly but consistently ahead of the Westminster curve.”

“This Thursday’s vote is being held in a uniquely febrile climate. It should be about Europe; it will be about the expenses scandal. On both counts, it is a moment to reward the principled consistency of the Liberal Democrats.”

The Liberal Democrats are campaigning on a platform that Europe delivers real benefits for people in the economy, dealing with crime and protecting the environment. Liberal Democrats will continue to champion reform and transparency: in company and financial regulation, in EU institutions and in MEPs allowances.

Economy and jobs: More than 3 million UK jobs, £70 billion in pay, depend on trade with other EU countries. This is ten times more than the net cost of being in the EU. There are lots more benefits too, such as cheaper goods and inward investment which also creates jobs.

Crime: Initiatives like the European Arrest Warrant help us to catch terrorists and criminals who operate across national borders. This was a Liberal Democrat idea. We see cooperation with our neighbours in this way as helpful to ordinary people. Informal cooperation is not enough.

Climate change: Pollution and climate change have no respect for national borders. Countries have to work together to tackle environmental problems. Liberal Democrats were key to achieving the EU climate change package, and are ambitious to build it further.

Liberal Democrats say we need strong, active MEPs to help make EU rules suit the UK. Opting out leaves us weak and takes away our say.

This is at the same time that the latest opinion poll in yesterday’s Sunday Telegraph put Liberal Democrat support on 25% - in second place ahead of Labour.  Clearly the Liberal Democrat message is getting through as a positive alternative that is promoting real change - now is the time to make a difference and vote Liberal Democrat on Thursday.

See http://www.libdems4europe.org.uk/ for more about Liberal Democrats and the European Elections.