Councillors aiming for a takeover with land grab

First published in Salisbury Letters

AT the Salisbury City Council meeting on July 21 the city councillors voted by 11 votes to seven to take over the whole of the parish of Laverstock & Ford, including Hampton Park and Old Sarum.

The seven city councillors who voted against this said that they would welcome Laverstock to join the city but would respect them if they wanted to remain intact and remain independent.

The 11 city councillors who voted for this land grab do not care if Laverstock, Ford, Hampton Park and Old Sarum want to join the city or not.

They want a takeover.

For the record, and from the published minutes, those city councillors are Matthew Dean (St Paul’s), Derek Brown (St Francis & Stratford), Sven Hocking (St Martin’s & Cathedral), Atiqul Hoque (St Francis & Stratford), Colin Froude (St Mark’s & Bishopdown), John Lindley (St Paul’s), John Collier (Harnham), Charles Rogers (St Francis & Stratford), Mark Timbrell (Milford), Margaret Willmot (Fisherton & Bemerton), and John Walsh (Fisherton & Bemerton).

One wonders if these city councillors really believe in democracy. What happens next?

According to the Wiltshire Council website the view of these 11 city councillors will be placed before a working group at Trowbridge.

It is to be hoped that someone at Wiltshire Council has read the Local Government and Public Involvement and Health Act 2007 which states that when considering a community governance review, principal councils are required to consult those local government electors in the area under review.

They have to ask the people of Laverstock, Ford, Hampton Park and Old Sarum what they want. Maybe the 11 city councillors should read this act as well.

Andrew Prince Salisbury

Comments (11)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:41pm Thu 21 Aug 14

gingin says...

Thank you for naming the parish councillors who voted for the land grab.

Two of those councillors went against their own party policy > they wonder why the public cannot trust a word they say!!
Thank you for naming the parish councillors who voted for the land grab. Two of those councillors went against their own party policy > they wonder why the public cannot trust a word they say!! gingin
  • Score: 15

12:56pm Thu 21 Aug 14

IanMcL says...

The named and shamed could also be labelled as having breached most of the 7 deadly sins!

PRIDE - excessive belief in one's own abilities.
They have no clue about their neighbours and yet believe that without any knowledge, they can do it better!

ENVY - the desire for others' traits, status, abilities, or situation
They envy our well managed and very low council tax

GLUTTONY - an inordinate desire to consume more than that which one requires
They have enough difficulties managing Salisbury and yet want to consume all their neighbours as well!

WRATH/ANGER is manifested in the individual who spurns love and opts instead for fury.
They turned down the option to welcome any neighbouring parish who wished to join but not force them and preferred the aggressive tactic of 'we're bigger and they should all join and pay our tax, like it or not'.

GREED/AVARICE - the desire for material wealth or gain
No contest there! Their only desire is to grab our land for building and increase our taxes by over £90 without anything to offer in return.

SLOTH - the avoidance of physical or spiritual work
They did no homework to find out what the neighbouring parishes might think and know nothing at all about any of us, other than we pay low council tax, whereas, Salisbury residents pay a lot more. They show not a jot of remorse and can't be bothered to talk to any of us about their decision.

**** - I know from long experience that some Salisbury councillors have craved the chance to grab us all - particularly L&F. Pillage will probably follow!

Perhaps the Cathedral should send someone down to Salisbury City parish Council to put them on the right path!
The named and shamed could also be labelled as having breached most of the 7 deadly sins! PRIDE - excessive belief in one's own abilities. They have no clue about their neighbours and yet believe that without any knowledge, they can do it better! ENVY - the desire for others' traits, status, abilities, or situation They envy our well managed and very low council tax GLUTTONY - an inordinate desire to consume more than that which one requires They have enough difficulties managing Salisbury and yet want to consume all their neighbours as well! WRATH/ANGER is manifested in the individual who spurns love and opts instead for fury. They turned down the option to welcome any neighbouring parish who wished to join but not force them and preferred the aggressive tactic of 'we're bigger and they should all join and pay our tax, like it or not'. GREED/AVARICE - the desire for material wealth or gain No contest there! Their only desire is to grab our land for building and increase our taxes by over £90 without anything to offer in return. SLOTH - the avoidance of physical or spiritual work They did no homework to find out what the neighbouring parishes might think and know nothing at all about any of us, other than we pay low council tax, whereas, Salisbury residents pay a lot more. They show not a jot of remorse and can't be bothered to talk to any of us about their decision. **** - I know from long experience that some Salisbury councillors have craved the chance to grab us all - particularly L&F. Pillage will probably follow! Perhaps the Cathedral should send someone down to Salisbury City parish Council to put them on the right path! IanMcL
  • Score: 3

12:57pm Thu 21 Aug 14

IanMcL says...

That four letter sin above is L-U-S-T

Hope it shows up this time.
That four letter sin above is L-U-S-T Hope it shows up this time. IanMcL
  • Score: -1

3:19pm Thu 21 Aug 14

Sustainer says...

Andrew Prince probably doesn't read the web version of the paper - not many do but just in case.
Personally, as a City resident, I am pleased to see that the majority of my Cllrs have responded to the opportunity from the principal council (Wiltshire Unitary Council) to put in a submission which is in the best interests of the City. The other parishes should have done the same. Salisbury City Council has no requirement to consult the other parishes because it is not the principle council to them.
The decision as to where the boundaries will fall in the future is not in the gift of SCC either so the City can't just grab land .
I'm sure Ian McL and gingin know this of course and would rightly expect their own Parish councils to look after the best interests of their residents. Perhaps their anger, aimed at the City, is driven by their realisation that L&F, even as late as their parish meeting on the 21 July, had not submitted to the principal council and that having seen a draft copy of the City Report had only started to ask for clarification of the process as evidenced by the following extract of their minutes.
14.078 REPORTS It was agreed that the Clerk should write to the Head of Electoral Services at Wiltshire Council seeking clarification of the process of Community Governance Review. Action Clerk
While we are quoting the Bible perhaps Mathew 7:5 "Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye..." is apposite.
Andrew Prince probably doesn't read the web version of the paper - not many do but just in case. Personally, as a City resident, I am pleased to see that the majority of my Cllrs have responded to the opportunity from the principal council (Wiltshire Unitary Council) to put in a submission which is in the best interests of the City. The other parishes should have done the same. Salisbury City Council has no requirement to consult the other parishes because it is not the principle council to them. The decision as to where the boundaries will fall in the future is not in the gift of SCC either so the City can't just grab land . I'm sure Ian McL and gingin know this of course and would rightly expect their own Parish councils to look after the best interests of their residents. Perhaps their anger, aimed at the City, is driven by their realisation that L&F, even as late as their parish meeting on the 21 July, had not submitted to the principal council and that having seen a draft copy of the City Report had only started to ask for clarification of the process as evidenced by the following extract of their minutes. 14.078 REPORTS It was agreed that the Clerk should write to the Head of Electoral Services at Wiltshire Council seeking clarification of the process of Community Governance Review. Action Clerk While we are quoting the Bible perhaps Mathew 7:5 "Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye..." is apposite. Sustainer
  • Score: -5

4:10pm Thu 21 Aug 14

gingin says...

Sustainer wrote:
Andrew Prince probably doesn't read the web version of the paper - not many do but just in case.
Personally, as a City resident, I am pleased to see that the majority of my Cllrs have responded to the opportunity from the principal council (Wiltshire Unitary Council) to put in a submission which is in the best interests of the City. The other parishes should have done the same. Salisbury City Council has no requirement to consult the other parishes because it is not the principle council to them.
The decision as to where the boundaries will fall in the future is not in the gift of SCC either so the City can't just grab land .
I'm sure Ian McL and gingin know this of course and would rightly expect their own Parish councils to look after the best interests of their residents. Perhaps their anger, aimed at the City, is driven by their realisation that L&F, even as late as their parish meeting on the 21 July, had not submitted to the principal council and that having seen a draft copy of the City Report had only started to ask for clarification of the process as evidenced by the following extract of their minutes.
14.078 REPORTS It was agreed that the Clerk should write to the Head of Electoral Services at Wiltshire Council seeking clarification of the process of Community Governance Review. Action Clerk
While we are quoting the Bible perhaps Mathew 7:5 "Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye..." is apposite.
That is where you are wrong, L&F submitted their interests approx a year or so ago. Before you go commenting on things the suggestion would be to find out what has been done first!

The best interests of the City apparently seem to be money orientated, perhaps getting their own house in order on spend against income might serve them better. Instead of trying to take the path of least resistance and ease.

Your biblical comment is lost on me as I do not believe in such stuff so keep your opinions on that to yourself.

Many residents of L&F parish do not wish to be taken over by the city and certainly wish to be represented by a non political parish council as opposed to one which is purely driven by politics and all the spitting of abuse across the table. Perhaps you should visit a L&F PC meeting and see the difference.

The latest agreement for the clerk to write to WC is indeed the latest action not the first.

The only reason for a arrogant parish council to agree on such a policy of take over is complete ignorance of what residents wish for in living in villages and parishes outside of the city but close by to it.

Take that as anger if you wish but get the facts straight first about how L&F PC operate instead of making sweeping statements.
[quote][p][bold]Sustainer[/bold] wrote: Andrew Prince probably doesn't read the web version of the paper - not many do but just in case. Personally, as a City resident, I am pleased to see that the majority of my Cllrs have responded to the opportunity from the principal council (Wiltshire Unitary Council) to put in a submission which is in the best interests of the City. The other parishes should have done the same. Salisbury City Council has no requirement to consult the other parishes because it is not the principle council to them. The decision as to where the boundaries will fall in the future is not in the gift of SCC either so the City can't just grab land . I'm sure Ian McL and gingin know this of course and would rightly expect their own Parish councils to look after the best interests of their residents. Perhaps their anger, aimed at the City, is driven by their realisation that L&F, even as late as their parish meeting on the 21 July, had not submitted to the principal council and that having seen a draft copy of the City Report had only started to ask for clarification of the process as evidenced by the following extract of their minutes. 14.078 REPORTS It was agreed that the Clerk should write to the Head of Electoral Services at Wiltshire Council seeking clarification of the process of Community Governance Review. Action Clerk While we are quoting the Bible perhaps Mathew 7:5 "Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye..." is apposite.[/p][/quote]That is where you are wrong, L&F submitted their interests approx a year or so ago. Before you go commenting on things the suggestion would be to find out what has been done first! The best interests of the City apparently seem to be money orientated, perhaps getting their own house in order on spend against income might serve them better. Instead of trying to take the path of least resistance and ease. Your biblical comment is lost on me as I do not believe in such stuff so keep your opinions on that to yourself. Many residents of L&F parish do not wish to be taken over by the city and certainly wish to be represented by a non political parish council as opposed to one which is purely driven by politics and all the spitting of abuse across the table. Perhaps you should visit a L&F PC meeting and see the difference. The latest agreement for the clerk to write to WC is indeed the latest action not the first. The only reason for a arrogant parish council to agree on such a policy of take over is complete ignorance of what residents wish for in living in villages and parishes outside of the city but close by to it. Take that as anger if you wish but get the facts straight first about how L&F PC operate instead of making sweeping statements. gingin
  • Score: 0

4:26pm Thu 21 Aug 14

IanMcL says...

Let them without sin cast the first stone!

As stated above, L&F were the first to register their desire to correct the boundaries and increase the democratic representation of the parish.
The boundary was incorrectly drawn when setting up Salisbury in 2009. That correction was requested. The new building in our parish warrants two Wiltshire Cllrs exclusively for our parish, so avoiding a shared cllr with Salisbury, which makes things messy. There was one other statement and that was to include Bishopdown Farm 300 original dwellings (used to be part of L&F) if needed to make the two WCllrs ......providing the people were happy to make the change. (Now there's a difference in attitude!)

If you think that the SCC decision has anything other than the sins recounted above...particularly the desire to charge us lots of extra money for....nothing, then say so but in your heart and head...you KNOW that is the only reason.

Most city councillors would not even know where most of our parish is located., let alone been there!


The latest request is to ensure the process is known...all the way to judicial review, if necessary.

Don't mess with those who will resist...and resist...and resist....and resist....

Withraw honourably before Salisbury is unecessarily besmirched by the few cllrs.
Let them without sin cast the first stone! As stated above, L&F were the first to register their desire to correct the boundaries and increase the democratic representation of the parish. The boundary was incorrectly drawn when setting up Salisbury in 2009. That correction was requested. The new building in our parish warrants two Wiltshire Cllrs exclusively for our parish, so avoiding a shared cllr with Salisbury, which makes things messy. There was one other statement and that was to include Bishopdown Farm 300 original dwellings (used to be part of L&F) if needed to make the two WCllrs ......providing the people were happy to make the change. (Now there's a difference in attitude!) If you think that the SCC decision has anything other than the sins recounted above...particularly the desire to charge us lots of extra money for....nothing, then say so but in your heart and head...you KNOW that is the only reason. Most city councillors would not even know where most of our parish is located., let alone been there! The latest request is to ensure the process is known...all the way to judicial review, if necessary. Don't mess with those who will resist...and resist...and resist....and resist.... Withraw honourably before Salisbury is unecessarily besmirched by the few cllrs. IanMcL
  • Score: 0

9:16pm Thu 21 Aug 14

beaser says...

We'll in this day & age of land grabs does this take over surprise me NO.
Who the hell do these Cllrs think they are,Russian.

We need a vote on this & there is nothing more than having a good fight when people feel they are being bullied by a dictator .
We'll in this day & age of land grabs does this take over surprise me NO. Who the hell do these Cllrs think they are,Russian. We need a vote on this & there is nothing more than having a good fight when people feel they are being bullied by a dictator . beaser
  • Score: 9

3:02pm Fri 22 Aug 14

Sustainer says...

The thrust of my note was that Iwould expect the City Cllrs to do what they thought best for the City. Is that assertion a correct one? If it is correct then the views of Laverstock residents are not primary. Secondly the City is in no position to take over anyone. The boundary decision is made by someone else having taken into account the submissions from all the parishes.
Gingin, as for facts first how about this: Over 1/3 of the current L&F parish councillors are co-opted and haven't stood for election. Personnally I am delighted to hear of anyone who is willing to serve their community in any way but it does leave the door open to accusations of 'cronyism'.
When SCC had a vacancy it ensured a proper election was undertaken and welcomed a new cllr as a result.
To get my facts straight I re-read the Parish minutes for the last year. The parish did not submit their interests approx a year or so ago as you stated as fact. The first reference to parish Boundaries was in February 2014 when cllrs were asked to consider changes. Any submission went in after the meeting on17 Mar at the earliest.
Ian, the Parish Meeting Minutes of the 17 Mar concerning Parish Boundaries make no reference to "......providing the people were happy to make the change." in reference to Bishopdown Farm!!
The Chairman did ask Councillors if they had thought about a consultation with residents on possible boundary changes and also stated that he was still concerned that residents are not being consulted.You said 'consultation was not necessary at this stage. It was important for a representation to be made to Wiltshire Council’s Head of Electoral Services before the end of March.'
Nothing there about consulting the residents of the City or the City Council before doing what you see as in the best interests of L&F!
The L&F 'consultation' very recently put on the Parish web gives no background and only asks very simply whether people want to stay as they are or come under Salisbury. Hardly informative!!

Frankly though we can bump our gums for ever on who did/say what to
whom but the fact gingin is that the decision belongs to someone else and our representatives, having made their submissions, must wait for that decision and implement it, whatever it is, to the best of their ability.
The thrust of my note was that Iwould expect the City Cllrs to do what they thought best for the City. Is that assertion a correct one? If it is correct then the views of Laverstock residents are not primary. Secondly the City is in no position to take over anyone. The boundary decision is made by someone else having taken into account the submissions from all the parishes. Gingin, as for facts first how about this: Over 1/3 of the current L&F parish councillors are co-opted and haven't stood for election. Personnally I am delighted to hear of anyone who is willing to serve their community in any way but it does leave the door open to accusations of 'cronyism'. When SCC had a vacancy it ensured a proper election was undertaken and welcomed a new cllr as a result. To get my facts straight I re-read the Parish minutes for the last year. The parish did not submit their interests approx a year or so ago as you stated as fact. The first reference to parish Boundaries was in February 2014 when cllrs were asked to consider changes. Any submission went in after the meeting on17 Mar at the earliest. Ian, the Parish Meeting Minutes of the 17 Mar concerning Parish Boundaries make no reference to "......providing the people were happy to make the change." in reference to Bishopdown Farm!! The Chairman did ask Councillors if they had thought about a consultation with residents on possible boundary changes and also stated that he was still concerned that residents are not being consulted.You said 'consultation was not necessary at this stage. It was important for a representation to be made to Wiltshire Council’s Head of Electoral Services before the end of March.' Nothing there about consulting the residents of the City or the City Council before doing what you see as in the best interests of L&F! The L&F 'consultation' very recently put on the Parish web gives no background and only asks very simply whether people want to stay as they are or come under Salisbury. Hardly informative!! Frankly though we can bump our gums for ever on who did/say what to whom but the fact gingin is that the decision belongs to someone else and our representatives, having made their submissions, must wait for that decision and implement it, whatever it is, to the best of their ability. Sustainer
  • Score: -4

4:53pm Fri 22 Aug 14

RAFRetd says...

I suggest that internecine squabbles amongst the SCC and contiguous Parish Councillors will only enhance the strength of the distant WC at Trowbridge. When one looks at a map of Salisbury I see a city whose several parishes are closely linked with the City centre; especially with the increase in housing developments. It is one urban sprawl linked by 30/40mph speed limits with very little open countryside. Even Old Sarum airfield is a commercial space linking Old Sarum to Ford, Hampton Park and Bishopdown Farm etc. Surely what the wider City of Salisbury needs are fewer Councillors and Councils and just one strong Council that represents the wider Salisbury including, Laverstock, Old Sarum, Ford etc. That way WC would hear from one elected City, albeit a parish, Council representing what the 45,000+ city dwellers want rather than have several small parochial Parish Councils make noises that are easier to ignore.
I suggest that internecine squabbles amongst the SCC and contiguous Parish Councillors will only enhance the strength of the distant WC at Trowbridge. When one looks at a map of Salisbury I see a city whose several parishes are closely linked with the City centre; especially with the increase in housing developments. It is one urban sprawl linked by 30/40mph speed limits with very little open countryside. Even Old Sarum airfield is a commercial space linking Old Sarum to Ford, Hampton Park and Bishopdown Farm etc. Surely what the wider City of Salisbury needs are fewer Councillors and Councils and just one strong Council that represents the wider Salisbury including, Laverstock, Old Sarum, Ford etc. That way WC would hear from one elected City, albeit a parish, Council representing what the 45,000+ city dwellers want rather than have several small parochial Parish Councils make noises that are easier to ignore. RAFRetd
  • Score: -1

6:00pm Fri 22 Aug 14

gingin says...

Sorry to labour the point about when L&F PC first submitted their interest but I know for a fact their first interest was submitted before February 2014. Interest was submitted when this was discussed a year or so ago.

The Wiltshire Councillor for Laverstock, Ford and Old Sarum has confirmed this in his post so one would think he knows better than you.

As for elections most parish councils are not formed by holding them so are you saying that SCC is the only proper parish council because it has candidates which are politically motivated and need to hold an election? Your elected councillors are just people wishing to serve their community also nothing special about them, same as any other parish councillor. Your comment tends to give the impression of being grand and superior to other parish councils.

Many comments on other threads are not that impressed with SC Parish council and it is certainly no Salisbury District Council.

Personally I prefer a parish council not to be political and how ever much the city councillors deny it they are backed by their party and argue with comments ending up in the Journal how this councillor from the Tories said this and that councillor from the Labour party said something else. Parish councils should represent the interests of their residents and leave party political stuff to WC.
Sorry to labour the point about when L&F PC first submitted their interest but I know for a fact their first interest was submitted before February 2014. Interest was submitted when this was discussed a year or so ago. The Wiltshire Councillor for Laverstock, Ford and Old Sarum has confirmed this in his post so one would think he knows better than you. As for elections most parish councils are not formed by holding them so are you saying that SCC is the only proper parish council because it has candidates which are politically motivated and need to hold an election? Your elected councillors are just people wishing to serve their community also nothing special about them, same as any other parish councillor. Your comment tends to give the impression of being grand and superior to other parish councils. Many comments on other threads are not that impressed with SC Parish council and it is certainly no Salisbury District Council. Personally I prefer a parish council not to be political and how ever much the city councillors deny it they are backed by their party and argue with comments ending up in the Journal how this councillor from the Tories said this and that councillor from the Labour party said something else. Parish councils should represent the interests of their residents and leave party political stuff to WC. gingin
  • Score: 8

12:11am Sat 23 Aug 14

IanMcL says...

Good effort Sustainer!

However, you are not privy to all the facts, so I do not hold you responsible for that, despite doing extensive research into past parish council minutes. Lucky L&F is a good PC and puts the minutes on line!

The incorrect boundary was highlighted in 2009, once it was realised that the map for Salisbury overlapped the map for Laverstock & Ford Parish on the WC website. Unfortunately, because Salisbury had been 'created', it was the most recent map, so until it can be rectified, that stands.

Once the Core strategy was placing lots of development in the parish, the positives were investigated. One of these is the ability to secure two Wiltshire Cllrs exclusively for the parish. Nothing sinister in that.

However, because it is impossible to know how many residents make a WCllr Ward/Division in a future change, the possibility of Bishopdown Farm's original 300 homes could be a possibility. This was formally covered in the detailed letter sent to Wiltshire Council in March 14 (on time) as requested by WC.

One sentence within it states:
"We do accept that Bishopdown Farm residents must take a view on any possible change"

So you see we do care!

The consultation you mention on the website is limited. However, the forthcoming 60 page parish newsletter contains more information to residents. That is the vehicle most widely read by all our residents....somethi
ng Salisbury cannot offer.

'The first reference to parish Boundaries was in February 2014'

In fact the parish council and Wiltshire Councillors for the parish convened a meeting with WC Electoral services Manager on 12/6/12 to state the case and lodge a formal request for the representation. This was the very first proposal lodged by WC since formation.

Salisbury was last in with theirs!

As you say, if the narrow vote by Salisbury wins the day at WC, then it will be a very unhealthy 'union' indeed. L&F is just one of several parishes which will feel like this. Maybe the most angry at present but the others will catch on.

As for RAF Retd, whilst I can understand the thought, the most local of decisions are best made by the most local of people. that is why parish Councils exist all over the country.
Good effort Sustainer! However, you are not privy to all the facts, so I do not hold you responsible for that, despite doing extensive research into past parish council minutes. Lucky L&F is a good PC and puts the minutes on line! The incorrect boundary was highlighted in 2009, once it was realised that the map for Salisbury overlapped the map for Laverstock & Ford Parish on the WC website. Unfortunately, because Salisbury had been 'created', it was the most recent map, so until it can be rectified, that stands. Once the Core strategy was placing lots of development in the parish, the positives were investigated. One of these is the ability to secure two Wiltshire Cllrs exclusively for the parish. Nothing sinister in that. However, because it is impossible to know how many residents make a WCllr Ward/Division in a future change, the possibility of Bishopdown Farm's original 300 homes could be a possibility. This was formally covered in the detailed letter sent to Wiltshire Council in March 14 (on time) as requested by WC. One sentence within it states: "We do accept that Bishopdown Farm residents must take a view on any possible change" So you see we do care! The consultation you mention on the website is limited. However, the forthcoming 60 page parish newsletter contains more information to residents. That is the vehicle most widely read by all our residents....somethi ng Salisbury cannot offer. 'The first reference to parish Boundaries was in February 2014' In fact the parish council and Wiltshire Councillors for the parish convened a meeting with WC Electoral services Manager on 12/6/12 to state the case and lodge a formal request for the representation. This was the very first proposal lodged by WC since formation. Salisbury was last in with theirs! As you say, if the narrow vote by Salisbury wins the day at WC, then it will be a very unhealthy 'union' indeed. L&F is just one of several parishes which will feel like this. Maybe the most angry at present but the others will catch on. As for RAF Retd, whilst I can understand the thought, the most local of decisions are best made by the most local of people. that is why parish Councils exist all over the country. IanMcL
  • Score: 7
Post a comment

Remember you are personally responsible for what you post on this site and must abide by our site terms. Do not post anything that is false, abusive or malicious. If you wish to complain, please use the ‘report this post’ link.

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