Boundary changes could raise tax

First published in News

RESIDENTS of Laverstock and Ford could see their council tax bills rise by an average of £92 a year under proposed boundary changes.

Salisbury city councillors voted last week in favour of extending the city’s boundaries to take in all its neighbouring parishes, other than Wilton.

A typical Band D taxpayer in Laverstock pays a parish precept of £12.45. People in Salisbury pay £105.

The city councillors were responding to a consultation being run by Wiltshire Council, which will have the final say.

Elected representatives of Laverstock and Ford, including parish councillors and Wiltshire councillor Ian McLennan, are strongly opposed to a takeover.

But with about 2,400 houses in Laverstock and Ford, the city council stands to gain more than a quarter of a million pounds a year.

And with more development going on in the Old Sarum area, which is part of Laverstock ward, that figure will rise considerably.

City councillors argue that residents of nearby parishes use the city facilities without contributing towards their cost.

But Cllr McLennan says most of the city’s facilities, other than the crematorium, are actually run by Wiltshire.

And his voters do not want decisions about their semi-rural area being made by an authority where the majority of members represent the city.

A city council spokesman pointed out that it was Wiltshire, not Salisbury, that instigated the boundary review.

He said all the large towns in the county were going through the process and facing the same issues.

Comments (14)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:56pm Wed 30 Jul 14

karlmarx says...

"City councillors argue that residents of nearby parishes use the city facilities without contributing towards their cost."

Can't wait to see the evidence that backs up this statement. If this is true then people as far away as Whiteparish and Wilton are at risk of having their council tax hiked. Which begs the question of all the people outside the area who visit Salisbury and use the facilities? Will the council track them down and force their council tax up?
"City councillors argue that residents of nearby parishes use the city facilities without contributing towards their cost." Can't wait to see the evidence that backs up this statement. If this is true then people as far away as Whiteparish and Wilton are at risk of having their council tax hiked. Which begs the question of all the people outside the area who visit Salisbury and use the facilities? Will the council track them down and force their council tax up? karlmarx
  • Score: 14

7:14am Thu 31 Jul 14

hillyanne says...

I suspect that many people outside the city boundary use the facilities more than the people inside it.
I suspect that many people outside the city boundary use the facilities more than the people inside it. hillyanne
  • Score: -5

8:23am Thu 31 Jul 14

gingin says...

karlmarx wrote:
"City councillors argue that residents of nearby parishes use the city facilities without contributing towards their cost."

Can't wait to see the evidence that backs up this statement. If this is true then people as far away as Whiteparish and Wilton are at risk of having their council tax hiked. Which begs the question of all the people outside the area who visit Salisbury and use the facilities? Will the council track them down and force their council tax up?
All residents living outside of any town or city use facilities as do tourists and visitors. The argument does not stack up as Councillor McLennan points out most of the facilities are owned and run by Wiltshire Council not the inept Salisbury City Parish Council.

It is a Wiltshire Council instigated review but Salisbury City Council should remember they are a Parish Council and have no more powers than any other parish council. Instead of alienating their neighbouring parishes with their bully boy tactics they should be looking at their own finances instead of trying to make money from "taking" over other parishes.

Development is taking place outside of Salisbury city in other parishes and all SCC has it's eyes on is the council tax to swell it's bank balance.
[quote][p][bold]karlmarx[/bold] wrote: "City councillors argue that residents of nearby parishes use the city facilities without contributing towards their cost." Can't wait to see the evidence that backs up this statement. If this is true then people as far away as Whiteparish and Wilton are at risk of having their council tax hiked. Which begs the question of all the people outside the area who visit Salisbury and use the facilities? Will the council track them down and force their council tax up?[/p][/quote]All residents living outside of any town or city use facilities as do tourists and visitors. The argument does not stack up as Councillor McLennan points out most of the facilities are owned and run by Wiltshire Council not the inept Salisbury City Parish Council. It is a Wiltshire Council instigated review but Salisbury City Council should remember they are a Parish Council and have no more powers than any other parish council. Instead of alienating their neighbouring parishes with their bully boy tactics they should be looking at their own finances instead of trying to make money from "taking" over other parishes. Development is taking place outside of Salisbury city in other parishes and all SCC has it's eyes on is the council tax to swell it's bank balance. gingin
  • Score: 13

12:48pm Thu 31 Jul 14

Hartley Hare says...

The City council is empire building and needs a change of leadership at senior staff level. The sooner the better. They don't give a **** about local opinions.

They seem to be emulating the Scott empire in that far away Town.
The City council is empire building and needs a change of leadership at senior staff level. The sooner the better. They don't give a **** about local opinions. They seem to be emulating the Scott empire in that far away Town. Hartley Hare
  • Score: 14

1:40pm Thu 31 Jul 14

IanMcL says...

The Salisbury Parish Cllrs don't seem to understand that they do not actually provide anything themselves which justify their hostile stance.

Crematorium - we all pay as we go.
Guildhall - If you wish to hire it...pay as you go.
Parks - We all have recreation grounds and open countryside. It must be years since I went into a city park...for an ice cream!

EVERYTHING else is all paid for by all of the citizens of Wiltshire and the commercial ventures run by private organisations. WE ALL PAY THE SAME TO WILTSHIRE.

In the case of my own parish, we do not need a mayor - fine and costly institution that it is. Our Parish Chair has a very nice chain of office and is able to attend and make speeches at local events, thank you very much.

I understand that the city takeover did not include Wilton, as "They have history". Well my parish existed before New Sarum, so that does not hold water. Also, have they never heard of Salisbury & Wilton Rural District Council? (Not that I would wish such a fate on Wilton)

As for the innocence stance of "It was Wiltshire not us guv", all WC requested was any views from parishes. All they had to say was "If anyone wishes to join the city, you are most welcome, if not, then we will remain your good neighbour and look forward to working with you all"

As repeated often above, by others - learn to manage your own parish first! We can all offer advice!
The Salisbury Parish Cllrs don't seem to understand that they do not actually provide anything themselves which justify their hostile stance. Crematorium - we all pay as we go. Guildhall - If you wish to hire it...pay as you go. Parks - We all have recreation grounds and open countryside. It must be years since I went into a city park...for an ice cream! EVERYTHING else is all paid for by all of the citizens of Wiltshire and the commercial ventures run by private organisations. WE ALL PAY THE SAME TO WILTSHIRE. In the case of my own parish, we do not need a mayor - fine and costly institution that it is. Our Parish Chair has a very nice chain of office and is able to attend and make speeches at local events, thank you very much. I understand that the city takeover did not include Wilton, as "They have history". Well my parish existed before New Sarum, so that does not hold water. Also, have they never heard of Salisbury & Wilton Rural District Council? (Not that I would wish such a fate on Wilton) As for the innocence stance of "It was Wiltshire not us guv", all WC requested was any views from parishes. All they had to say was "If anyone wishes to join the city, you are most welcome, if not, then we will remain your good neighbour and look forward to working with you all" As repeated often above, by others - learn to manage your own parish first! We can all offer advice! IanMcL
  • Score: 11

3:46pm Thu 31 Jul 14

Sustainer says...

Do any of the above commentators actually live in the City? Seems to me that the City Cllrs are proposing what is best for their own citizens. Why should they give a fig for those other Parishes? The Review was initiated at County level so presumably the other Parishes have submitted their suggestions in an attempt to do what they think is best for their own residents. Seems odd to criticise others for doing what they were elected to do which is represent the best interests of their residents. Damned if you do damned if you don't springs to mind.
Do any of the above commentators actually live in the City? Seems to me that the City Cllrs are proposing what is best for their own citizens. Why should they give a fig for those other Parishes? The Review was initiated at County level so presumably the other Parishes have submitted their suggestions in an attempt to do what they think is best for their own residents. Seems odd to criticise others for doing what they were elected to do which is represent the best interests of their residents. Damned if you do damned if you don't springs to mind. Sustainer
  • Score: -12

5:23pm Thu 31 Jul 14

IanMcL says...

"Do any of the above commentators actually live in the City? "

That's the point Sustainer....we all chose to live where we felt at home. Some chose city life, others local villages. We want to preserve our way of life!

"Seems to me that the City Cllrs are proposing what is best for their own citizens. Why should they give a fig for those other Parishes?"

That's exactly the attitude we are all being threatened by. Instead of the good neighbour, Salisbury councillors are saying..."We want all that is yours to compensate for us being bigger"
"Do any of the above commentators actually live in the City? " That's the point Sustainer....we all chose to live where we felt at home. Some chose city life, others local villages. We want to preserve our way of life! "Seems to me that the City Cllrs are proposing what is best for their own citizens. Why should they give a fig for those other Parishes?" That's exactly the attitude we are all being threatened by. Instead of the good neighbour, Salisbury councillors are saying..."We want all that is yours to compensate for us being bigger" IanMcL
  • Score: 11

6:23pm Thu 31 Jul 14

gingin says...

Sustainer wrote:
Do any of the above commentators actually live in the City? Seems to me that the City Cllrs are proposing what is best for their own citizens. Why should they give a fig for those other Parishes? The Review was initiated at County level so presumably the other Parishes have submitted their suggestions in an attempt to do what they think is best for their own residents. Seems odd to criticise others for doing what they were elected to do which is represent the best interests of their residents. Damned if you do damned if you don't springs to mind.
The best interests of the cities residents is not to walk all over other parishes just to gain the precept money.

As explained earlier there certainly is no gain for Laverstock and Ford Parish to be "taken" into the city, they manage quite nicely without the cities interference! They also don't carp on about city residents enjoying a visit to the Riverbourne Community Farm or walk along the Boardwalk without paying towards it.

Never heard such nonsense for a reason to take over a neighbouring parish.
[quote][p][bold]Sustainer[/bold] wrote: Do any of the above commentators actually live in the City? Seems to me that the City Cllrs are proposing what is best for their own citizens. Why should they give a fig for those other Parishes? The Review was initiated at County level so presumably the other Parishes have submitted their suggestions in an attempt to do what they think is best for their own residents. Seems odd to criticise others for doing what they were elected to do which is represent the best interests of their residents. Damned if you do damned if you don't springs to mind.[/p][/quote]The best interests of the cities residents is not to walk all over other parishes just to gain the precept money. As explained earlier there certainly is no gain for Laverstock and Ford Parish to be "taken" into the city, they manage quite nicely without the cities interference! They also don't carp on about city residents enjoying a visit to the Riverbourne Community Farm or walk along the Boardwalk without paying towards it. Never heard such nonsense for a reason to take over a neighbouring parish. gingin
  • Score: 9

6:57pm Thu 31 Jul 14

Sustainer says...

The City can't walk over anyone but following Ian's logic he is is saying we want whatever is yours but don't want to contribute. Hardly constructive either.
The City can't walk over anyone but following Ian's logic he is is saying we want whatever is yours but don't want to contribute. Hardly constructive either. Sustainer
  • Score: -8

10:25pm Thu 31 Jul 14

IanMcL says...

Sustainer wrote:
The City can't walk over anyone but following Ian's logic he is is saying we want whatever is yours but don't want to contribute. Hardly constructive either.
That is the city parish councillors view by a narrow majority.

Just to repeat, the only free offering from the city, is a walk in the park and also highlighted was a place on a city allotment waiting list!

Other neighbouring parishes have green spaces, recreation areas, open countryside, footpaths, cycle networks, community farms and a host of local clubs and societies.

All our facilities are enjoyed by city dwellers and visitors from afar. Everyone is welcome! That appears to be the difference in approach.
[quote][p][bold]Sustainer[/bold] wrote: The City can't walk over anyone but following Ian's logic he is is saying we want whatever is yours but don't want to contribute. Hardly constructive either.[/p][/quote]That is the city parish councillors view by a narrow majority. Just to repeat, the only free offering from the city, is a walk in the park and also highlighted was a place on a city allotment waiting list! Other neighbouring parishes have green spaces, recreation areas, open countryside, footpaths, cycle networks, community farms and a host of local clubs and societies. All our facilities are enjoyed by city dwellers and visitors from afar. Everyone is welcome! That appears to be the difference in approach. IanMcL
  • Score: 9

8:03am Fri 1 Aug 14

gingin says...

Sustainer wrote:
The City can't walk over anyone but following Ian's logic he is is saying we want whatever is yours but don't want to contribute. Hardly constructive either.
Everyone who lives in villages and parishes outside of their main city or town use the "facilities" > shops, parks etc. The towns and cities could not survive unless non city dwellers used their money when visiting.

As stated earlier these parishes and villages have facilities of their own which any visitor can use without having to pay a toll when entering!

In the case of Salisbury any "facility" not owned by SCC and that is the majority is payed for and run by WC which everyone pays the going rate with their council tax so saying we want what is yours but don't want to contribute is nonsense. Perhaps next time any city resident visits Laverstock they should make a contribution towards the facilities. See how stupid that sounds!!
[quote][p][bold]Sustainer[/bold] wrote: The City can't walk over anyone but following Ian's logic he is is saying we want whatever is yours but don't want to contribute. Hardly constructive either.[/p][/quote]Everyone who lives in villages and parishes outside of their main city or town use the "facilities" > shops, parks etc. The towns and cities could not survive unless non city dwellers used their money when visiting. As stated earlier these parishes and villages have facilities of their own which any visitor can use without having to pay a toll when entering! In the case of Salisbury any "facility" not owned by SCC and that is the majority is payed for and run by WC which everyone pays the going rate with their council tax so saying we want what is yours but don't want to contribute is nonsense. Perhaps next time any city resident visits Laverstock they should make a contribution towards the facilities. See how stupid that sounds!! gingin
  • Score: 9

10:40am Wed 6 Aug 14

Sustainer says...

I understand that the city did make a large grant to the community Farm in Laverstaock some 4 years ago. Did the residents of Laverstock?
I understand that the city did make a large grant to the community Farm in Laverstaock some 4 years ago. Did the residents of Laverstock? Sustainer
  • Score: -2

12:30pm Wed 6 Aug 14

gingin says...

Laverstock and Ford Parish Council has given grants to the Community Farm so yes the residents of Laverstock have paid towards it.

Don't try and score points unless you have all the facts!
Laverstock and Ford Parish Council has given grants to the Community Farm so yes the residents of Laverstock have paid towards it. Don't try and score points unless you have all the facts! gingin
  • Score: -1

12:45pm Wed 6 Aug 14

IanMcL says...

I am unaware of any grant from the City Council to the River Bourne Community Farm in Laverstock. However, the City Council has certainly won an award in the recent past with the Laverstock based farm integral in the reason why it won (which made me chuckle!) For balance, Laverstock won best kept Village (note term village) and the allotments in Cow Lane got a mention. (I chuckled then too). Although in Laverstock, they were passed to the City with our love.

As for Laverstock & Ford Resident making contributions, that would be an understatement. Many villagers volunteer to assist either in the upgrading of facilities by sharing their skills or by providing the cream teas for all to enjoy. In monetary terms, the farm has received many thousands of pounds to assist in its development from both Laverstock & Ford (every year) and Southern Area Board.

We treasure our assets and remain of the opinion that everyone can enjoy them free of charge. Come on in. You are most welcome.
I am unaware of any grant from the City Council to the River Bourne Community Farm in Laverstock. However, the City Council has certainly won an award in the recent past with the Laverstock based farm integral in the reason why it won (which made me chuckle!) For balance, Laverstock won best kept Village (note term village) and the allotments in Cow Lane got a mention. (I chuckled then too). Although in Laverstock, they were passed to the City with our love. As for Laverstock & Ford Resident making contributions, that would be an understatement. Many villagers volunteer to assist either in the upgrading of facilities by sharing their skills or by providing the cream teas for all to enjoy. In monetary terms, the farm has received many thousands of pounds to assist in its development from both Laverstock & Ford (every year) and Southern Area Board. We treasure our assets and remain of the opinion that everyone can enjoy them free of charge. Come on in. You are most welcome. IanMcL
  • Score: 4

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree