This is pure hypocrisy

WHILE I supported the merger of Laverstock and Ford Parish Council into Salisbury City Council the vote went with the wishes of their residents. I can live with that and move on.

The transfer of a large chunk of Bishopdown Farm into Laverstock however, is beyond the pale. Knowing the forthcoming cost pressures Labour Wiltshire and city councillors, with the commendable exception of Cllr John Walsh, actively worked on behalf of another parish against the interests of their own city residents to support this option. Had they voted for, not against, this would not have happened.

At Full Council on Monday evening we were given a lecture by a Labour councillor about how Bishopdown Farm residents elected to move from Salisbury into Laverstock as they felt under-represented and that members don’t represent the council, we represent residents. On the first point, horse feathers, when you offer somebody a bicycle for £110 or the very same bicycle for £12 guess which one they’ll choose?

As for representing residents he’s right, but telling everybody else what they should be doing while doing the polar opposite is pure hypocrisy. In this instance the Salisbury Labour Party have failed spectacularly to represent their own electorate.

I have said previously, you cannot give away city assets and now large residential areas without a plan to cover the financial shortfall, between you and me that’s put up taxes or cut services, so I look forward to seeing our Labour colleagues’ proposals.

Sven Hocking, Conservative City Councillor, St Martin’s and Cathedral

Look forward

I AM writing on behalf of Laverstock and Ford Parish Council to thank all the Wiltshire Councillors, community leaders and the residents of Laverstock and Ford Parish who steadfastly supported the continued existence of Laverstock and Ford Parish during the recent Community Governance Review. We also want to convey an offer to Salisbury City Council.

The recommendation by the Community Governance Review was unequivocal. Reject the motion to abolish Laverstock and Ford Parish Council through a forced merger with Salisbury City Parish Council. The subsequent vote by Wiltshire Councillors endorsed this recommendation as clearly as it possibly could; 65 Wiltshire Councillors voted with the working group recommendation to oppose a merger of Laverstock and Ford Parish Council with only four councillors supporting the merger.

During the debate at Trowbridge two Wiltshire Councillors conveyed the sentiments of the majority when they praised the work of Laverstock and Ford Parish Council, concluding that “this must be the best parish council in Wiltshire.” While I am suitably embarrassed by this statement, I do know we do our job reasonably well and have a clear, robust vision for the future of our parish. We try our best to work in a collaborative way which brings no disadvantages and many benefits to our neighbours in both the city and other rural parishes.

Now that the dust has started to settle, we would welcome the opportunity to work with Salisbury City Council – a shared Neighbourhood Plan could be a good example of the way we could work together. We look forward to discussions with the City Council to determine how we can move forward to the advantage of both parishes.

David Burton, Chairman of Laverstock and Ford Parish Council

Road angst

LIFE is full of problems and we seem to have our fair share in Salisbury.

Southampton Road, a major route from the southeast to Salisbury and beyond, is plagued by congestion remarked upon and bemoaned by most citizens who have cause to use it.

So, what a good plan!

We have another major route, this one comes from the west uses Salisbury ring road and goes on towards Winchester, Andover and London – we will let retail trade develop along the side of this road and add more chaos to our already overworked, under-repaired road system.

Yep! A supermarket – great idea!

This will naturally affect parking since the London Road park and ride, although cheaper, will end up a slower route into the city.

My memory is not failsafe, but I seem to remember when the development along London Road began, it was decided that only wholesale or low traffic generating business would be allowed.

That has been bypassed, apparently, so that more local problems can be added.

Having referred to my possibly dodgy memory I seem to recall that the traffic lights on our ring road roundabouts were for peak and busy periods only.

How many of us have sat at red lights (during non-busy periods) producing air pollutants for our city when we could have, in fact been well on our journey?

Never mind, let us do better – we can make Blue Boar Row a shared space, traffic and pedestrians mixed together... that should slow the traffic enough to increase the pollution a fair bit.

You can tell that by looking at the two pedestrian crossings in Fisherton Street as you approach the traffic lights at the bottom of the High Street.

Is there anything else, apart from the potential final loss of the CCTV system?

Feel sure the Salisbury Journal readers can provide a fairly long list of problems.

Brian Ford, Bemerton Heath

Ham-fisted

I AM really pleased at the result of the Wiltshire Community Governance Review regarding Laverstock & Salisbury.

I do have some outstanding concerns on behalf of Salisbury residents. How is Salisbury Parish planning to respond if there were a claim for reimbursement from Wiltshire Council after the Laverstock Boundary fiasco – and the amount of time and effort wasted on behalf of Salisbury Parish by Wiltshire Council?

The attempt to abolish the neighbouring parish of Laverstock was, per the Community Governance Review documentation, illegal and improper and never going to be successful.

What on earth persuaded Salisbury Parish that their efforts to perform a money-based land-grab would be successful?

Who authorised this expenditure? Who decided that it would be worth wasting Wiltshire County resources on this incompetent effort? How much did Salisbury Parish actually waste in time, money, resources and energy?

Incidentally, who at Salisbury Parish authorised the appallingly inept website page ‘Salisbury Together’ with the stupidly ham-fisted consultation?

How much did this attempt cost – to Salisbury, to Wiltshire and to Laverstock? There were meetings of Salisbury officers, Salisbury councillors, briefings, consultations, discussions with Wiltshire officers, meetings of Wiltshire Councillors, more meetings and lengthy debates at the Community Governance Review committee, even several public meetings. Overall a significant amount of time and effort wasted by officers at more than a few county and parish departments. Obviously – and to no effect – Salisbury has wasted the time, energy and resources of Wiltshire councillors and, Wiltshire officers, Salisbury Councillors, Salisbury officers – who pays? Who authorised it and who should be liable?

And not one meeting between Salisbury and Laverstock in order to discuss what might be offered and what the mutual gain might be. Not one. And Salisbury Parish has the gall to imply ‘blame’ to Laverstock for Salisbury’s failure to be able to pay for CCTV and for the upkeep of public toilets.

And as a final question, if Salisbury does have any officers or indeed councillors with legal knowledge (or the ability to read the relevant paragraphs of the Community Governance Review documentation) – why didn’t they give competent advice? Oh, I forgot, Councillor Roberts is a lawyer!

J King, Laverstock

Walk dismay

APPROACHING Salisbury, the signs say “Medieval City”.

If the piazza plan for the city centre riverside (Journal, July 7) goes ahead, “previously under-utilised” should be added.

As the article says, while the developers say the riverside walk is “under utilised” (presumably meaning commercially) they themselves say it is – for now – an “extremely pleasant environment”. The attached photo bears witness to this.

However, instead of a quiet, leafy path alongside the river, where people now stroll, chat and rest close to nature – right in the heart of town – the “site” will be stripped of four beautiful trees and other greenery, and replaced with more ghastly paving (isn’t the market square soulless enough already?) and two glass/metal/concrete restaurants.

How will this “enhance the riverside walk in general”?

Colin Marshall Salisbury Democracy joy THE result of the Wiltshire Council vote on Tuesday for the city to take over Laverstock was a triumph for democracy.

Not only did the city not gain Laverstock it also lost 300 houses in Bishopdown; shooting oneself in the foot comes to mind.

The request by Salisbury to take over a neighbouring parish against its residents’ known wishes was very surprising and smacks of hypocrisy given the tears shed when the old Wiltshire County Council did just that to Salisbury District Council. Maybe Wiltshire Council is still keen to score points over Salisbury City Council , hence the vote in favour of Laverstock!

Steve Hannath Dinton Harmless fun YOUR report on the growing unease about spraying Glyphosate for weed control in Salisbury Parks reminds me of an incident some years ago that still makes me smile.

I was walking my dog in the New Forest when we encountered a man spraying re-growth of previously cut-back rhododendron. He was wearing wellington boots, a protective boiler suit, gloves, a helmet with face guard and a face mask.

Seeing me watching, he paused in his spraying, slipped off the face mask, flipped up the transparent visor and said: “Don’t worry mate – this stuff’s perfectly harmless.”

Alan Jones, Hale

Back to future?

I NOTED with interest that the final paragraph of the article on the tunnel into Old Sarum reported that a 1974 halfpenny was found during the 1795 excavation. Is this evidence of a Timelord losing some small change?

Peter Hambleton, Porton