By-Election Called For Vacant St Mary’s Council Seats

polling stationA local by-election has been called on St Mary’s to contest the three vacant Council seats on the island.

It follows a request by two members of the local electorate and is likely to take place on 16th June.

Information about standing for election can be obtained from the Returning Officer through the Town Hall One Stop Shop and nominations must be received no later than 4pm on Friday 20th May.

As there are three vacant seats for St Mary’s, there’ll only be a contested election if more than three candidates come forward.

If not, then no poll will be required and all nominees will be elected as members of the Council automatically.



10 Responses to By-Election Called For Vacant St Mary’s Council Seats

  1. Ides of June June 7, 2016 at 12:11 pm

    Could be the shortest tenure for a councillor anyway, the council is now teetering on the brink, watch this space……………………

    Oh dear what can the matter be Madam Chairman?

  2. High Lanes Drifter May 21, 2016 at 7:45 am

    I suspect it will be some obscure individual who is chummy with one or other of the current leadership. Oh well another chapter opens in the current farce, we can only hope it isn’t just some oddball who has been here two minutes and yet knows just what we all need.

    • Sue Shame May 22, 2016 at 3:10 pm

      as opposed to a born and bred Scillonian concerned for the future of the islands and with an ounce of credibility. No conviction amongst the traditional “locals” meaning it IS someone who’s beeen here a few years that has stepped up to try and make a difference. There’s a lot of talk here from “Old Scillonians” and Local 1,2 and 3!!!!!! But not a lot of action……

      • Linguine May 24, 2016 at 7:47 am

        Interesting choice of initials Sue.
        I suspect that many “Old Scillonians” are conscious of the fragile nature of the council since the junta grabbed the reins and are minded to let the “Linguist” and her retinue continue to tilt at windmills.
        Regrettably I suspect that many have rightly concluded that the Council has all the rope it needs and that the inevitable appearance of the referee is now preferable to its continuance.

    • Linguine June 1, 2016 at 1:22 am

      Oh dear as predicted another ‘Johnny come lately’ is installed c/w DNA testing for dog poop.
      Good to know the priority needs of the Islands are properly in sight, after all why bother with the trivial stuff like overspends, dire budget issues, social housing, ludicrous capital schemes, the airport, transport, gruesome audits, senior management performance, ensuring the appropriate declaration of interests etc.

      No, first start with the important things and get all the dogs on the Islands DNA profiled, let’s stamp on dog mess once and for all.

      • Hugh Towner June 2, 2016 at 12:17 am

        …With DNA testing you can prove which dog did the deed, but you cannot prove who was in charge of the dog at the time (and hence who was guilty of an offence). The dog owner can just claim that the dog was walked three times that morning by 3 different people. So, the dog warden still needs to see the deed being done to make the match to a person.

        I’m all for people clearing their dog mess, but the Council should really focus on ensuring the PSPO is lawful

        For the power to grant the PSPO, there 2 conditions in S. 59 of the Antisocial Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014 that must be statisfied…. What are the “reasonable grounds” on which councillors are satisfied that owners walking too many dogs or letting their dogs off the lead in Hugh Town have had a detrimental impact on quality of life, or is likely to? Are councillors really satisfied that that the activities covered are ‘unreasonable’ and ‘justify the restrictions imposed by the notice? Are the activities of throwing a ball for your dog or training your pet on the playing fields really something our councillors see as ‘unreasonable’ activities that justify the new dog exclusion zones?

        This legislation was brought in to tackle serious antisocial behaviour problems in urban areas where status dogs are used to intimidate members of the public going about their everyday lives. In the Isles of Scilly, broadly speaking, dog owners are responsible and their dogs are well behaved.

      • Adam Morton, St.Martins June 3, 2016 at 9:09 am

        Doggy doo has been the top complaint to the Council for years. Sadly those with the priorities you mention are a minority of seemingly about two! Consequently the elected members represent this.
        This apathy is in no small part due to “positive reporting”, If they say what they think the visitors want to hear long enough , they actually believe it themselves! Now this site is virtually inactive we can’t even raise public awareness. Looks like game over.
        Public outrage and appetite for doing anything about unacceptable issues lasts only a few weeks before it’s forgotten then we sleepwalk into a situation we can’t get out of. Transport is a perfect example, not only did we lose the helicopters, the Bristol & Southampton routs but thanks to EU rules the SCIII lost 25% of its capacity, doesn’t sail at night, fares jump by about 10% a year and freight by 25% this year. Meanwhile people willingly contribute to IP who manipulate the figures to show year on year increases & good news stories whilst 2/3 of holiday lets around here are empty till whitsun! Not only that the Council are in the process of privatising the only transport hub on the islands for five months of the year which would be all well & good if they disbanded a council which no longer intends to provide any accessible, useful services and passed on the saving in the form of council tax reductions but no, they just continue to pile forkfuls of straw on the camel’s back! They merely want to rid themselves of difficult or potentially embarrassing commitments so that the Council can be a soapbox for important personages to spout about matters of little significance!
        The islands are nothing without transport to take our goods to market or bring the market to us. What money there is should underpin this which then generates a vibrant economy and thereby the means to support other initiatives which are otherwise left high & dry – there is no point in providing social housing merely to fill it with people on housing benefit because all other means aren’t viable.There’s no point in designating half the waste as “trade” if trade is facing bankruptcy. A Privatised airport will fail if tourism fails, with no airport there won’t be any innovators or IT businesses.

  3. Pete May 12, 2016 at 5:19 pm

    Let’s hope that these candidates ask questions. And bang the table when necessary.

  4. Adam Morton, St.Martins May 12, 2016 at 9:30 am

    I can’t see the point in this, there’s only one year left to run and the four seats not filled is probably saving £40000 pa in allowances & expenses!
    We desperately needed a cost effective alternative to the failed rout scheme. This current administration has decimated the islands in its refusal to tackle this problem. SSco shareholders won’t like it but it simply isn’t possible for the economy to flourish under theses circumstances with a £13m a year black hole compared with mainland economies. That money comes out of either visitor spending or adds to cost of services and detracts from profits.
    Even four new candidates to fill the remaining seats isn’t going to overturn the current majority or the Councils past budgets. The coalition is passed now and with it all opportunity for a positive outcome. I’m not sure the islands are ever going to recover from this. It doesn’t matter if it’s growing spuds, attracting tourists or even IT businesses it all comes back to the same thing-transport! Getting in competitors won’t change it because there isn’t enough trade for two.Sorting this underlying problem was the foundations necessary before the Council’s current list of ambitions.
    Filling these seats is utterly pointless If they can’t or won’t do anything then keep the numbers to an absolute minimum and use the money to pay for rubbish removal or toilets etc.

    • Ewart Less May 21, 2016 at 8:40 am

      The whole council has become utterly pointless and the number of seats that have been vacant for so long is testimony to that fact. I do hope that the population reflect on the reasons for its continuing failure and the significant person who did so much to shape it’s current form. The antics of our council would be laughable if the outcomes that they will leave as a legacy weren’t so bleak.